List surfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail (layers and burning behaviour), but says nothing about ordering, volume, or output format, so it is only a modest addition.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is syntactically broken and motile, undermining the otherwise clean structure.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what is returned (surfaces with layers and burning behaviour). However, it omits any notion of result size/format and the stray rules line adds noise rather than completeness.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify here, and the empty schema is consistent.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (user-defined general surfaces, &SURF), and names the returned sub-content (layers, burning behaviour). It is distinguishable from sibling list tools such as list_material_library and list_slcf, though the differentiator is mostly the '&SURF' tag rather than an explicit contrast.

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 statement of when to use this over alternatives (e.g., list_slcf, list_geoms, list_material_library). The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search' line is a cryptic rule pointer, not actionable usage guidance, and leaves the agent to infer context.

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