List compendiums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that 'Editable' is computed from the write switch, permission level, release list, and lock, and that editability is a current-state property. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, the next two clarify the key 'Editable' semantics, and the final sentence gives actionable usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.

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 listing tool, the description is complete: it enumerates the returned attributes, explains the nuanced 'Editable' field, and ties the tool to the exporting workflow. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's mention of 'pack id' is output-related, not parameter-related, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every compendium with its type, entry count, lock state and whether the AI can write to it right now.' It clearly scopes the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like list-compendium-packs or list-compendium-entries by emphasizing the full list and computed editability.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Call this before exporting to find the right pack id.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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