List 2ools build systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds account-scope context ('this paid account may explicitly apply') and clarifies that the output is a list of three system types, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

The description is only two sentences, with the core function stated first (front-loaded) and usage guidance in the second. Every word earns its place; no redundant or repetitive content.

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 simple, read-only list tool with one optional filter parameter, the description, combined with complete schema and annotations, fully captures the necessary context. It names what is returned, scopes access, and gives usage timing. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single optional filter parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List the Curators, Rulebooks, and Skills this paid account may explicitly apply.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Curators, Rulebooks, and Skills'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as a precursor to build_from_conversation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use before build_from_conversation when the user names a creative system or asks what is available.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and references a sibling tool as the alternative, meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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