list_validators

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the failure mode (errors when the DataValidation subsystem is unavailable) and clarifying that only enabled validators are listed. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, but the added precondition context is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, followed by the read-only note, the error precondition, the sibling reference, and finally the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical API name and the explicit Returns block add mild redundancy.

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 present, the description supplies the return shape (validators array with class_name/class_path/enabled plus validator_count), the error condition, and the sibling relationship. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on parameters and instead covers the return payload.

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 (editor data validators enabled by the DataValidation subsystem), names the underlying API (ForEachEnabledValidator), and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can immediately distinguish this from validate_asset without opening any 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?

Says it is read-only, notes it errors when the DataValidation plugin subsystem is unavailable (a precondition), and points to validate_asset as the sibling that actually runs validators on one asset. It implies when to use this (enumeration) vs validate_asset (execution), though it does not spell out the selection condition as explicitly as possible.

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