list_dysfunctions

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

With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only hints that entries carry 'reliability and review signals' but omits details on ordering, pagination, performance, 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: first sentence defines purpose and filters, second adds a key detail about return values. Every word 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?

As a list tool with no output schema, the description should explain return format, pagination, and result limits. It only vaguely states entries have 'reliability and review signals,' which is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, but the description merely restates the filter parameters already defined in the schema. It adds no new semantics, such as explaining the meaning of confidence levels or how filters interact.

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 returns a 'filtered list of dysfunctions' and specifies three filter dimensions (axis, self_report reliability, confidence). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_dysfunction' (singular) and 'list_axes'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_dysfunction' for a specific dysfunction). There is no 'when not to use' or context about prerequisites.

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