list_operational_heuristics

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

The description is straightforward about the listing behavior but lacks details on potential pagination, response structure, or any side effects; since no annotations exist, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 succinct with two sentences and a bullet-like enumeration, front-loading the main action and clearly listing parameters without extraneous content.

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 description omits details about output format, ordering, or potential empty results; given no output schema, this is a gap for a listing tool with optional filters.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions; the tool description adds clarification that query searches across titles and principles, and suite_id filters heuristics relevant to a suite, adding slight value over the schema alone.

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 lists operational heuristics from production deployments, specifies the type (cross-cutting safety principles), and distinguishes from the normative pattern layer, differentiating it from sibling tools like find_patterns_for_task.

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 explains optional filters (query, suite_id) for narrowing results, but does not explicitly suggest when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings; the distinction from the pattern layer is implicit.

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