crosspad_list_interfaces

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds the specific scope (I*-prefixed classes in a particular directory path). However, given there's an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return format, and read-only listing tools have limited behavioral complexity. The description adds the directory scope context which is useful, but nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness guarantees.

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 a single, tightly-written sentence with zero wasted words. It packs in the verb, resource, naming convention, and directory location all into one concise sentence. This is exemplary front-loading and efficiency.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is listed, where they are found, and the naming convention to identify them. The output schema handles return-value documentation. Minor gap: doesn't state what to do with the results or how they connect to sibling tools like crosspad_interface_implementations, but this is adequate for a simple listing operation.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There's nothing more to explain, and the description appropriately clarifies the scope of what 'interfaces' means via the I* prefix convention.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List all crosspad-core interfaces') and adds specificity by noting the I*-prefixed convention and the exact directory path. It's clear what this tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like crosspad_interface_implementations or crosspad_search_symbols, though the focus on listing interface definitions in a specific directory is reasonably distinctive.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to enumerate available interfaces), but there's no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it versus alternatives like crosspad_interface_implementations or crosspad_search_symbols. The context is fairly clear but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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