list_business_primitives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only minor context — that this returns a canonical, versioned manifest rather than raw business records — but reveals nothing about pagination behavior, output volume, or what 'canonical' means operationally. This is adequate but not additive beyond annotations.

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 single 8-word sentence is technically concise with no waste, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The sentence does not earn its place because it omits the information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with six undocumented parameters and a near-identical sibling, one terse sentence is inadequate. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to explain what an Executable Primitive is, how this differs from list_executable_business_primitives, or what the filtering parameters do.

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% and the description mentions none of the six parameters (limit, query, offset, category, summary_only, include_inputs). With no schema documentation and no description-level compensation, an agent cannot know the meaning of summary_only vs include_inputs or how category filters results. The description entirely fails to carry the parameter-semantics burden.

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 and resource ('List the canonical, versioned Executable Primitive manifest'), so it is not a tautology. However, the sibling `list_executable_business_primitives` is nearly identical in name, and the description never clarifies the relationship or what distinguishes the 'canonical, versioned manifest' from that listing. Domain jargon like 'Executable Primitive' is left undefined, weakening selection confidence.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as `list_executable_business_primitives`, `run_business_primitive`, or `run_sdk_business_primitive`. The description provides no exclusions, no when-to-use context, and no mention of alternatives.

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