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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the items are 'bounded' and 'frozen' and that each carries a 'revision digest and its own stated limitations,' which gives useful behavioral context about the nature of the data. However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List the bounded, frozen questions'), followed by a brief note on what each item carries. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (a list of templates) and what each item includes (revision digest, limitations). It could mention whether the list is paginated or ordered, but for a simple list operation this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context about what the returned items contain (revision digest, limitations), which is helpful.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists 'bounded, frozen questions this platform publishes for attempt,' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (task templates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task_template (which retrieves a single template) and search_resources (which searches resources). The phrase 'bounded, frozen questions' adds specificity about the nature of the items.

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 description implies this is the tool to use when you need an overview of all published task templates, contrasting with get_task_template which would fetch a single one. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names make the use case reasonably clear. A clear context is provided, though no explicit exclusions.

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