list_committees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that the list is current rather than session-scoped and that membership is intentionally excluded, which are not inferable from the schema alone. It does not mention potential limitations like authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read-style list tool this is acceptable.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key scoping distinction and useful cross-references to related tools, so every sentence 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, an output schema is present, and the description covers purpose, scoping, and downstream usage, this is complete. An agent has enough contextual information to call list_committees correctly and know how the result connects to other tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'one or both chambers' explains the chamber parameter, and 'optionally with subcommittees' explains include_subcommittees. It doesn't restate the enum values or defaults, but those are already visible in the schema, and the natural-language semantics are clear.

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 identifies the resource (standing committees), the scope (one or both chambers), and the optional subcommittee inclusion. It also distinguishes this list from get_committee by noting that membership is handled elsewhere, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate: it is not session scoped and lists committees that exist now. It explicitly routes membership questions to get_committee and tells the agent how to use a committee's number or name with get_committee, list_meetings, and list_dockets, giving clear context and alternatives.

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