keel_list_vendors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly scopes the operation to workspace-tracked vendors and enumerates all returned fields, giving the agent an accurate picture of the output. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or access requirements, but 'List' sufficiently signals a read-only operation.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the returned fields. The field list is slightly long but directly useful since there is no output schema. No filler or unnecessary wording.

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 is nearly complete: it explains the return values explicitly and the schema handles the parameter. Minor omissions like default ordering or whether all statuses are included keep it from a perfect score.

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%, and the query parameter's description ('Optional case-insensitive substring filter over the vendor name') fully documents its meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('third-party vendors tracked in the workspace'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like keel_whoami and keel_readiness, which serve unrelated purposes.

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?

When to use the tool is implied by its clear purpose: if an agent needs the vendor list, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or why it should be preferred over alternatives, though sibling tools are obviously distinct in function.

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