list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single word 'list' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, what format the results come in, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise (one word), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A good description should be appropriately sized to convey necessary information - this single word fails to provide any meaningful context about the tool's purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides zero meaningful information, this description is completely inadequate. The tool exists among 89 sibling tools with similar naming patterns, yet the description gives no indication of what this specific tool does, making it impossible for an agent to understand when or how to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (though there are no parameters to describe). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information that could be missing or incomplete.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 89 sibling tools including several other list-related tools, there's no indication of what makes this specific 'list' tool appropriate for certain situations or what its scope or limitations might be.

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