vectis_list_missions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: 'No provider calls.' It clarifies that calling this tool has no external side effects and does not make network/request calls, which is valuable context. It does not describe response size or ordering, but the safety profile is covered.

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?

This is two short sentences with zero verbosity. The primary action, 'List local missions and costs,' is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note is concise and useful. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides the core facts: what is listed (local missions and costs) and the boundary ('No provider calls'). It does not detail fields in the response, but given that no output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It feels complete enough for correct selection.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The 0-parameter baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists, so the score reflects the appropriate baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List local missions and costs.' It also flags a distinguishing behavior ('No provider calls'), which separates it from sibling tools like vectis_get_mission or vectis_search_web. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'No provider calls' implies the tool is for a quick, purely local enumeration, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as vectis_get_mission, nor does it mention when not to use it. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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