List authorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: offset-based paging and the fact that each row carries a one-line summary drawn from the user's own notes, which shapes how results should be presented.

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?

Front-loads the core claim (everything, no filter needed) and keeps to three sentences. The mid-sentence list 'what is in here, how big is it, summarise all of it' is slightly loose but still earns its place as usage framing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that rows carry a one-line summary and that results page through offset. For a six-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage, that covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the sort enum and the limit maximum. The description restates the narrowing options and the '"none"' sentinel for unfiled projects, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies — baseline 3 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 resource — enumerate every authority in the library — and explicitly positions itself as the enumeration entry point ('This is how you enumerate the library'), which separates it from search_cases, search_library, and list_project_cases.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('what is in here, how big is it, summarise all of it') and notes that no query or filter is required, so the agent knows this is the browse-all path. It does not explicitly name search_cases or list_project_cases as the alternatives for narrowed lookups, so the when-not is left implicit.

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