list_flirt_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read-only listing operation, which is clear, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns metadata or just names.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple listing function, the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. A minor gap is not explaining what 'currently applied' means or any prerequisite, but for a zero-param tool, this is sufficient.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the lack of arguments. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline is 3, and the clarity of the zero-parameter context justifies a higher score.

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 all FLIRT signatures currently applied to the database, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('FLIRT signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_flirt_signature.

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 tool is for reading existing FLIRT signatures, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no guidance on prerequisites or context).

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