List Checklist

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a defensive, read-only-style listing operation gated on ownership or written authorization, which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it says nothing about whether results are paginated, cached, or scoped to a project, and the safety caveat is restated three times rather than expanding on actual behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded correctly, but three of four sentences are near-duplicates of the same authorization warning, consuming the bulk of the text without adding information. The space would have been far better spent explaining the 'category' filter or the relationship to sibling tools.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with a single optional parameter. Still, the one parameter is entirely undocumented and the relationship to the audit siblings is unstated, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 is one optional parameter, 'category', and the schema provides 0% description coverage of it. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent has no idea what values are valid or what filtering effect it has. This is exactly the case where the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('technical readiness checklist rules and indicators for Sri Lanka PDPA'), which is enough to separate it from the scan/detect/check/generate siblings. It falls short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, check_breach_readiness, which likely overlaps in subject matter.

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 does constrain usage, but only along the authorization axis ('sites/projects you own or are authorised to audit'). It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over check_breach_readiness or run_full_audit, which is the more common selection problem for an agent.

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