invariance_operator_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral requirement: 'Requires a user-session JWT bearer.' This is valuable beyond the annotations and does not contradict them. No mention of return format or pagination, but that is a minor omission given the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the core action, the filtering option, and the authentication requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 description covers the essential aspects: scope (caller's project), filtering, and auth. Since there is no output schema, the response format is not specified, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap. The tool is low complexity, and the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

Both parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description reiterates that operator_type filters for human teammates or agents, but this adds little beyond the schema, which already explains the enum values and the project membership requirement. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (list), resource (operators), and scope (inside one of the caller's projects). It also notes the optional filter by operator_type, which clarifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling operator tools like operator_get, operator_me, and operator_create.

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 gives clear use cases: list operators in a project, optionally filtered to human teammates or autonomous agents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like invariance_operator_get or invariance_agent_list, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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