list_behaviors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying 'PC-side' and 'Python behaviors,' but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or whether the list is empty-safe. This is adequate for a simple read-only list tool but adds no behavioral depth beyond the annotations.

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, directly worded sentence carries the entire description with zero wasted words. The key terms 'List' and 'saved PC-side Python behaviors' are front-loaded and unambiguous.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The mention of 'PC-side' clarifies scope relative to brick-local behaviors, and no output schema exists to require return-value documentation. Minor missing context, such as what fields each listed behavior includes, prevents 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'saved PC-side Python behaviors,' making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_behavior (retrieve one) and run_behavior (execute).

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 phrase 'saved PC-side Python behaviors' implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to enumerate saved behaviors. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_behavior for retrieving a single behavior or run_behavior for executing one, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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