list_registered_operations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact — that the returned set is exhaustive and policy-bounded ('the only ... a model may propose') — but it says nothing about whether the set is static, read-only, or how it should be consumed downstream.

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 wasted words, and the key constraint is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the brevity shades into vagueness rather than precision.

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-argument, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient — the return shape is covered elsewhere. What is absent is any anchoring of 'repair operations' to the surrounding CAD/review workflow or guidance on acting on the result.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No param-level detail is required or missing.

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 says it enumerates the repair operations a model may propose, which is a specific resource, but the verb 'Describe' is soft and the scope ('repair operations') is never grounded in a system or artifact. It does not distinguish itself from nearby catalogue-style siblings such as list_cad_bundle_tools or list_network_repair_candidates.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'only' tells an agent this is the authoritative allowlist to consult before proposing a repair, but there is no explicit when-to-call, no exclusion, and no named alternative among the many list_* siblings.

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