List a namespace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the output format (one line per native with permissions and since) and the special case for globals. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, sorting, or whether the output is truncated for large namespaces. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, the output format is specified, and the special case is stated concisely. 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the namespace parameter. However, the runtime parameter is completely unexplained, and there's no mention of what the output looks like beyond 'one line each' (e.g., whether it's a table, JSON, or plain text). The tool is simple enough that this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'namespace' parameter semantics well (including the omit-to-list-namespaces behavior and _G for globals), but it doesn't explain the 'runtime' parameter at all. The runtime parameter has an enum (client/server) but its meaning and whether it's required are left to inference. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a namespace'), and clarifies the output format ('one line each with permissions and since'). It also explains the special case of omitting the namespace to list namespaces. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like open77_resources or open77_search, though the namespace-specific scope is clear.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to enumerate natives under a namespace or list namespaces. It gives examples of valid namespaces (Open77.vehicles, Open77.players, _G) and the special behavior for globals. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like open77_search for finding specific natives.

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