List Modifiers

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring this a safe read, the description's contribution is the tenant scoping (results are per-tenant, not global) and the function-array context. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the list is large, which matters for a catalog-style tool. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the actionable guidance. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the examples are chosen to illustrate the `g_*` convention efficiently.

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 two-optional-param read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, who scopes it, and when to call it. What's mildly missing is a hint about the shape of each returned modifier (name, category, description — inferable from the filter params but not stated), which would help the agent decide whether to filter or fetch all.

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 `search` (name or description substring) and `category` (with example values) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own — notably it never mentions that the list can be filtered at all, so the agent must read the schema to discover that. Baseline 3 given the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (modifier functions on this tenant), then pins it down further with the exact naming convention `g_*` and three concrete examples (g_length, g_jsonPath, g_formatDate). The 'usable in a transform's `functions` array' clause anchors the tool to a concrete usage site, so an agent knows precisely what it would get back.

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?

"Check here instead of assuming a function exists" is an explicit when-to-use instruction that steers the agent away from hallucinating a function name — a genuinely useful piece of guidance. It doesn't name alternatives, but none of the listed siblings serve this purpose, so there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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