speaker-list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies read-only and no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated. The description is minimal and does not mention any potential effects, permissions, or limitations, so transparency is moderate.

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 a single, precise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 sibling tools (speaker-create, speaker-report, speaker-set), the description adequately covers the tool's function within the context. It implies returning a list of speakers. However, it does not specify output format or any optional details, but this is acceptable for a simple list operation.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description does not add any parameter-related information because there are none to describe. Per the rubric, baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional meaning is provided.

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 'List speaker objects' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (speaker objects), distinguishing it from sibling operations like speaker-create, speaker-report, and speaker-set. It is concise but could be more specific about what a 'speaker object' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify whether to use this over speaker-report for listing all speakers, or if it supports filtering. This lack of usage context may lead to ambiguity.

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