List Corpora

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states that the tool returns registry records, enumerates the supported corpora, and lists the fields included, which is strong transparency for a read-only listing. It does not cover edge cases like missing data or response size, but those are less critical with an output schema.

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 tight sentences: the purpose is stated first, and the second sentence adds enumerative detail without redundancy. No 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?

Given the tool is a parameterless list operation and an output schema exists, the description is complete: it specifies the universe of corpora and the metadata fields returned. The sibling tools are clearly different in function, so no additional disambiguation is required.

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 the schema already exhaustively documents the interface. The description adds no parameter detail, and none is needed; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and object: 'List all registered ancient text corpora with metadata'. Names the exact registry sources and fields, making the scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling per-item tools like get_corpus_status and search_corpus.

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 use when a full inventory of corpora is needed but does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_corpus_status or search_corpus, nor state when not to use it. Still, the 'list all' framing gives enough context for an agent to select it for broad enumeration.

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