list_signals

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read-only listing without side effects. Adequate for a simple list operation, but could mention that it's static or requires no special permissions.

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 clear sentences, no redundant words. Purpose and benefit are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema; description lacks detail about the return format (e.g., array of objects, field names). Could be improved for an agent to know what data to expect.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying that signals come with weights and descriptions, which is beyond the empty schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists trust scoring signals with weights and descriptions, differentiating from siblings like get_score or explain_score. The verb 'list' and resource 'trust scoring signals' are specific.

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?

Implied usage from description ('helps understand composite trust score'), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives among sibling tools like explain_score.

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