detectors_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the return payload shape, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether 'registered' implies user-configured vs built-in detectors — relevant for a tool that lists ALL entries.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the payload fields following; there is no filler, hedging, or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the key fields (id, dimension, capabilities, default thresholds). The remaining gap is completeness of the contract — pagination, ordering, and whether thresholds are unit-bearing — but the core is covered.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description bears no parameter burden; baseline for a 0-param schema is 4. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description's 'list all' framing.

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 (registered quality detectors) and enumerates the returned attributes (id, dimension, capabilities, default thresholds). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools such as trends_list and jobs_list by the resource noun, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives like quality_score, profiles_get, or trends_list, and no mention of prerequisites. The 'registered detectors' framing implies a discovery step before configuring or interpreting quality results, but that is left entirely to inference.

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