Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. "List" weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is stated about read-only safety, pagination/limits, authentication, or result ordering; with no annotations to lean on, this leaves the agent guessing about scope and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and filters come first. The "and/or" phrasing is slightly awkward but harmless, and there is no structural padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is low-complexity with only two optional params. However, in a large sibling set the description gives no routing guidance and leaves 'category' semantics undocumented, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% — 'workspace' is documented in the schema but 'category' is not. The description clarifies that both are optional filters, which adds modest meaning to the undocumented 'category', but it does not explain matching semantics (exact vs. substring) or valid category values, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("stored ground truths") with scope (optional category/workspace filters), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the obvious sibling wyrm_truth_set or from the broader recall/search tools, and the name (get) vs description (list) mismatch is a minor wrinkle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "optionally filtered by category and/or workspace" implies when filters are useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus wyrm_search, wyrm_recall, or wyrm_truth_set, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied, which is minimum viable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.