list_suites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation listing suites with subgoal counts and titles. It does not describe any side effects or potential issues, but for a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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 only, with no unnecessary words. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is simply listing fixed information, the description provides all necessary context: what is listed (16 suites, with counts and titles) and that it should be called first.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all 16 suites in the SaferAgenticAI framework', including the breakdown of 9 drivers and 7 inhibitors. It also mentions subgoal counts and titles, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_patterns_for_task or list_requirements.

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 explicitly advises 'Call this first to orient', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. The sibling tools are all different in purpose, so no further disambiguation is needed.

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