concept_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: result ordering (sorted by id) and, critically, that where/timestamp filters apply before limit, which governs how limiting behaves. It does not describe pagination or output ordering stability across writes.

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?

Very dense but front-loaded: the core operation and return shape come first, then filter/limit ordering, then the sibling pointer. Semicolon-heavy phrasing is terse but every clause carries information; no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on return-shape disclosure (id, title, type, status; fields adds keys) plus sorting and filter-before-limit semantics. For a 6-param read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/result-size limits are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the three undocumented params: scope is a prefix with empty meaning the whole KB, fields adds keys on top of the default projection, and limit is applied after filtering. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it gives no default/format detail for limit.

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 and scope: an exhaustive inventory of concepts under a scope prefix, returning id, title, type, status. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (index_get for curated navigation), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

"For curated navigation use index_get" gives one clear alternative with the condition that selects it, and "empty = whole KB" clarifies scope fallback. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. cost on large KBs vs. paginated search), so it falls short of a full 5.

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