list_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content beyond that by naming the returned fields (chain head and metadata). However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the list can be filtered or is unbounded.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and return content, with no filler. The '[READ]' prefix is mildly redundant given readOnlyHint, but the whole description is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for describing returns; it does name chain head and metadata, which is helpful. It still omits pagination behavior and result ordering, leaving the agent to guess at the shape and scale of the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With no arguments to document, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific resource (bundles) and qualifies it as previously generated, with a listing verb implied by the tool name. It also names what is returned (chain head and metadata), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_bundle or generate_evidence_bundle. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_bundle, export_bundle, or list_audit_sources. The '[READ]' tag hints at the read-only nature but gives no selection criteria. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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