list_executable_business_primitives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main added value is the 'bounded page' and 'query one ref for full schemas' behavior. This goes beyond the structured fields, but the phrase 'one ref' is vague and leaves room for misinterpretation about what is returned.

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 one concise sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The second clause is compact but cryptic, sacrificing some clarity for brevity.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover some return and safety aspects, but the description omits how pagination works, what the query parameter should contain, and what include_schemas controls. The presence of the sibling list_business_primitives makes the lack of differentiation risky. The term 'one ref' is unexplained and the overall usage context is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only implies limit/offset through 'bounded page' and hints at query/include_schemas through 'ref' and 'schemas', without naming or explaining any parameter, default, or behavior. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 and object: 'List a bounded page of SDK primitives', which clearly names the core operation. It also signals a paginated, reference-based design. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling list_business_primitives or explain what 'SDK primitives' are, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 gives no condition for when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_business_primitives, get_engine_inventory, or run_sdk_business_primitive. 'Query one ref for full schemas' is a partial navigation hint rather than clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternative selections are provided.

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