echopath_list_procedures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add real behavioral context: procedures are learned paths/replay-library records, and a matching active procedure causes replay rather than fresh planning. It implies a read-only listing but does not state filtering semantics (active vs inactive, limits, ordering) or expected empty results, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what it returns, then the when-to-use rule, then the handoff tool. No filler sentences and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields. For a no-parameter listing tool its guidance on when to call it and which sibling to call next is sufficient for correct 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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description's mention of id/store/title/step count is about output, already covered by the output schema.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (stored procedures), and clarifies what counts as a procedure: learned paths and replay-library records. It also names the returned fields and points to the distinguishing sibling echopath_get_procedure, so an agent can separate it from the list_runs/list_sessions siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Check this before starting a desktop task') and the consequence of doing so (a matching active procedure replays instead of planning from scratch). It also names the follow-up tool, echopath_get_procedure, and what it retrieves (the replay phrase), which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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