list_directives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it returns all data at once or uses pagination, what the output format is, or any rate limits or permissions required. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all NoJS directives') and adds necessary detail ('optionally filtered by category') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter use, but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits like pagination or permissions, and explicit guidance compared to siblings. For a read operation, this is acceptable but leaves gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema, including its type and allowed values. The description adds value by mentioning the optional filtering by category, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already covers, such as default behavior when no category is specified.

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 resource ('all NoJS directives'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on listing rather than explaining, getting cheatsheets, scaffolding, or validating. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the different action verbs.

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 usage context through 'optionally filtered by category,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving directives with optional filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'explain_directive' or 'get_cheatsheet,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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