list_lua_states

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description need only add context. It contributes the 'ALL' scope hint, implying a complete unfiltered enumeration with no pagination, but says nothing about ordering, whether indices are stable across calls, or how states come into existence.

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 short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

The output schema already describes return values and the tool is parameter-free, so little is required. Still, the description never explains what a 'Lua state' is in this context or why an agent would want to enumerate them, which leaves a conceptual gap for a niche tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema; the empty schema says everything. Baseline 4 applies to parameter-free tools.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'Lua state indices and their names', so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not reference the closely related run_lua sibling, which would have sharpened the distinction, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives. The obvious pairing, discovering a state index before invoking run_lua, is never mentioned despite run_lua being a sibling. Usage is only inferable from the wording.

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