wisdom_list_transforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name and adds no traits such as read-only behavior, pagination, default limits, or what 'available' means. The word 'list' weakly implies a read operation, but the description adds no value beyond the name.

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 only three words and contains no filler, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name. The sentence could have been used to clarify scope ('transform definitions') or mention filtering, but instead it adds no distinct informational value.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters fully described in the schema, 'List available transforms' is minimally viable—an agent knows what action it performs and can rely on the schema for parameter semantics. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of what a transform is, the description is not fully complete.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (limit and domain) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra meaning about how these parameters affect the results, but the 100% schema coverage means that deficiency is not critical.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('available transforms'), and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like wisdom_get_transform and wisdom_create_transform. However, 'available transforms' is slightly ambiguous—it does not explicitly say whether these are transform definitions, instances, or templates—so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_get_transform or wisdom_create_transform. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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