List Routines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether this is a safe read, whether it is paginated, how many routines are returned, or what happens on an empty workspace. It adds one genuinely useful fact (stages are resume points), but that is a domain gloss rather than operational transparency.

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?

It is one short fragment with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — a complete sentence naming the verb and the sibling relationship would cost the same space. The parenthetical clarification of 'stages' is the one part that clearly earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present so return values need not be described) and the parenthetical explains the domain term 'stage'. However, with no annotations and a discoverable sibling like run_routine, the omission of any read-only assurance or selection guidance leaves a real gap.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The mention of 'params and stage names' describes the returned entity's shape rather than 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 is a noun phrase ('Known routines with params and stage names') rather than a verb+resource statement; the verb 'list' is only inferable from the tool name. It does convey the resource and its useful contents, but it never states plainly that this retrieves/enumerates routines, leaving the purpose implied rather than declared.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious sibling run_routine — which the agent must distinguish this from — is never mentioned. The only hint of usage is the parenthetical about stages being resume points, which is semantic information rather than routing guidance.

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