list_assumptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects (or lack thereof). It does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond listing.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently explains the parameter and output without unnecessary detail.

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 (one optional parameter, has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use the parameter, and what is returned.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section clearly explains the 'level' parameter with enumerated options ('global', 'domain', 'session', 'step', or None for merged). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic anyOf definition.

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 assumptions' and specifies the resource ('assumptions at a specific level or merged across all levels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'assume' and 'show_assumptions' by focusing on listing with level granularity.

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 when needing to list assumptions at different levels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'show_assumptions' or 'check_assumption_conflicts'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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