list_bindings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the case-insensitive filter behavior, which is useful, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth needs, or error behavior. The 'enumerate' verb implies safety, but it is not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance and a behavioral note. No filler.

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 enumerator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key filter behavior. It is slightly incomplete due to the missing differentiation from list_capi_functions and the cpp surface omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the case-insensitive filter detail beyond the schema, but it also omits the 'cpp' surface listed in the schema's language enum, creating a potential inconsistency.

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 tool enumerates public exports of a binding surface, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the surfaces but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_capi_functions, which overlaps on the C-API surface.

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?

Explicit use cases are given ('what does the {Python|Node|Codon} binding expose?', 'browse a binding before picking a symbol'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like list_capi_functions, so it lacks exclusions.

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