list_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation ('list all') with no side effects, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or behavior if no definitions exist. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, complete sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, straightforward purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does and from where, with no missing context.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% description coverage (trivially). The description provides no additional parameter meaning because none is needed. Baseline is 3, but since the tool has no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.

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 the action (list), resource (GDPR definitions), and specific source (Article 4). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like get_definition (single definition) and search_definitions (search), fulfilling the requirement of a specific verb+resource with sibling distinction.

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 usage for retrieving all definitions from Article 4, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_definitions or get_definition. No exclusion criteria or context are provided, so guidance is merely implied.

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