bloom_list_behaviors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it supplies almost nothing. The verb "List" weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but there is no statement about permissions, scoping, or side effects.

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 short sentence with no filler, appropriately front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated; the brevity borders on under-specification for a domain-specific term, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema side is fully covered. What is missing is any behavioral framing (read-only nature, scope of "Bloom behaviours") that would let an agent confidently choose this tool over its many siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related content is missing or misleading.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("List ... Bloom behaviours"), which is unambiguous as an operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling Bloom tools such as bloom_get_history, bloom_get_thresholds, or bloom_evaluate_model, and the domain term "behaviours" is left undefined, so an agent cannot tell exactly what class of objects is returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other Bloom tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of what context makes a behaviour list relevant. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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