gdbx_names_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the ordering behavior ('newest first') and the global scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential caveats such as authentication requirements, pagination, or what exactly is returned (e.g., just the name strings or richer objects). For a simple list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends key qualifiers (global registry, newest first). No wasted words; every clause adds meaning.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core behavior. The only gap is the lack of any mention of the return format (e.g., list of strings vs. objects), but 'names' implies a list of name strings. The description is essentially complete for its simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. It correctly implies the tool takes no inputs.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('all claimed .gdbx names') and clarifies scope ('global registry') and ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdbx_name_resolve, which presumably resolve a single name, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'List all' provides clear context that this tool is for enumerating all claimed names, which implicitly distinguishes it from resolution tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling short of explicit exclusions.

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