list_ecosystem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions 'discover' and gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential impacts. This lack of transparency is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core function without extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediately scannable, perfectly fitting the minimal parameter schema. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource type (CKG packages) and gives examples of adjacent domains. It lacks details about return format or examples, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it.

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 coverage is 100% (with no properties to document). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: discovering other CKG packages for adjacent domains such as finance, healthcare, and legal. It uses a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('other CKG packages'), making the function unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_domains, the unique focus on packages distinguishes it adequately.

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 gives a general sense of when to use the tool (when exploring adjacent domains) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the brief statement.

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