list_hats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, but it does not detail what the response contains, whether any side effects exist, or any authentication requirements. It covers the basic safety profile but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds value by explaining the purpose of the hats. No redundant or wasted words.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to call the tool and what it accomplishes. It indirectly indicates that a list of hats will be returned via 'Browse available'. It could explicitly state the output format, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the action and resource.

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 clear verb 'Browse' and a specific resource: 'Intelligence Packs (Specialist Hats)'. It also explains their purpose ('domain expertise you can activate'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'wear_hat' that likely activates hats. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for discovering available hats before activating them, referencing activation directly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'available' and 'you can activate' conveys a clear usage scenario alongside sibling 'wear_hat'.

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