schema_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the source (sleep consolidation) and the Tier-0 + Tier-1 restriction, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as return format or side effects. This aligns with the calibration example where annotations carry the main burden and the description adds moderate value.

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 extremely concise, with the core action and scope front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the read-only note and filter parameters with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, full schema descriptions, an output schema, and rich annotations), the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the source, safety, and filtering. No significant information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including defaults and semantics. The description only echoes 'Filter by domain and confidence_min' without adding any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'induced schemas' and narrows scope to 'Tier-0 + Tier-1 from sleep consolidation.' This not only states what it does but also distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like memory_recall or memory_search.

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 clearly indicates the tool is read-only and mentions the two filter dimensions (domain and confidence_min), which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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