List department codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the data source (schedule of classes) and filtering behavior, which is useful. It doesn't describe return format or edge cases, but given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose with examples, the second gives usage guidance and filtering. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and filtering. It doesn't mention what happens without a filter (returns all codes) but that is implied. The annotations cover safety, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the filter parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only says 'Optionally filter by a substring', which largely repeats the schema's meaning. The description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states it lists UCI department codes used by the schedule of classes, with concrete examples (COMPSCI, I&C SCI, BIO SCI). This is a specific verb+resource and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_terms or list_programs, which handle different entities.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when you are unsure of the exact code for a subject', which is a clear usage condition. It also notes optional substring filtering, providing practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it's slightly below perfect.

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