list_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists indicators with specific details (class signature, batch function, shape) and supports a case-insensitive substring filter. This is sufficient for a read-only listing tool, though it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the output details and parameter behavior completely. It answers the likely user intent: listing indicators with their characteristics.

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% with one parameter (filter) described as 'Optional substring filter; case-insensitive.' The description adds value by specifying case-insensitivity and substring matching behavior, which is not captured in the schema alone.

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 lists every indicator with details like class signature, batch function, and shape. It explicitly mentions use cases: 'when the user asks what indicators does FLOX support or before suggesting an indicator name,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like suggest_indicator.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the user asks what indicators does FLOX support or before suggesting an indicator name.' This gives clear context and implies when not to use it (e.g., when computing an indicator).

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