beliefs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the tool returns a grouped, numbered list of all 28 beliefs, which is a safe, read-only operation. It does not discuss side effects, auth, or edge cases, but for a listing tool these are minimal concerns and the output schema is available.

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 specifies the output organization. Every phrase earns its place: 'all 28' sets scope, 'by number and title' defines format, and 'grouped by doctrinal category' explains structure.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description covers the essential information an agent needs. It could be slightly more explicit about when to choose this over beliefs_get or beliefs_search, but the scope is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description's mention of grouping and numbering adds useful output context beyond the empty schema.

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'), a precise resource ('all 28 Fundamental Beliefs'), and the exact output format ('by number and title, grouped by doctrinal category'). The phrase 'all 28' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like beliefs_get and beliefs_search, which operate on individual or matching beliefs.

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 the tool: when a complete, categorized enumeration of Fundamental Beliefs is needed, rather than a single-belief lookup or a search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'all 28' phrasing provides clear context for selection.

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