list_guarantees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the return fields (name, type, description, rule/schema, priority, status) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. While the 'list' verb implies reading, making it explicit would improve transparency. Still, it provides good 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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line summary, then uses bullet points for use cases and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (name, type, description, rule/schema, priority, status). The tool is simple (no params, no nested objects) and the description covers all necessary information for an agent to use it effectively.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. With no parameters, the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters is correct.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all defined code guarantees (rules and contracts)', distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_guarantees' (which validates) and 'create_guarantee' (which creates). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides use cases ('See existing invariants', 'Understand code contracts before modifying code') and tells when to use it ('Use BEFORE check_guarantees'). This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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