list_regime_clocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'reporting clocks + authorities' but gives no details about read-only nature, authentication requirements (api_key optional but unexplained), rate limits, or side effects. The description fails to add sufficient behavioral context.

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 is very concise at one sentence, front-loading the verb and object. Every word earns its place. However, it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness to cover parameter usage.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about what 'regimes' are, prerequisites for the optional api_key, and any behavioral caveats. For a simple list tool, the coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has one parameter (api_key) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter, its purpose, or when to provide it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('reporting clocks + authorities') with explicit scope ('every regime this MCP covers'), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like classify_incident and sign_incident_response_attestation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool's name and description make its purpose clear enough given the distinct siblings. A statement about prerequisites or context would improve the score.

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