list_tools

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

The description explicitly declares the tool as 'Read-only', which is a critical behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. No additional behavioral details are necessary for a simple listing operation.

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 consists of two short, informative sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and filtering, the second adds usage context. Every word 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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and safety (read-only). While it hints at output ('one-line descriptions'), that is a minor omission; overall, the description is complete for a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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%, with the parameter 'tier' already described in the schema. The description repeats 'filtered by tier' without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed expectations.

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 explicitly states 'List available RecallNest tools with one-line descriptions, filtered by tier' and marks it as 'Read-only'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., auto_capture, store_memory) which are content-specific operations.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use when you need to discover advanced or governance tools beyond the core set.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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