mystorax_surfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the status taxonomy and optional filter but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached/ordered, what happens if an invalid ('wired' vs non-enum) status value is passed, or whether pagination/limits apply. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 tight single sentence of ~20 words with the key status values front-loaded and the optional filter mentioned. No wasted words. Could arguably include sibling differentiation, but strictly for length and clarity it is efficient.

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 simple 1-parameter, 0-required list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, it should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., surface names, IDs, properties). It also doesn't clarify the relationship to mystorax_capability_lookup. These are minor gaps for a listing tool of moderate complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'status' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description restates the filter option but adds no syntax, format, or behavior detail beyond what the schema already documents. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal value.

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 ('MystoraX capability surfaces') and includes the status values ('wired|guided|inventory|refused|deferred'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mystorax_submit_goal or mystorax_job_status, which are action/status tools, while this is a listing tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling mystorax_capability_lookup or surface its unique scope beyond listing.

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 gives the filter capability ('Optional status filter') but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like mystorax_capability_lookup or mystorax_routing_guide. There is no when/when-not context or mention of what a caller should do before invoking (e.g., whether a routing guide must be consulted first).

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