list_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or path requirements. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise with two lines, front-loading the primary purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks any context about limitations, prerequisites, or when to choose this tool among many siblings, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description explains that project_path is an 'Absolute path to the project directory', adding significant semantic context beyond the schema's type-only definition. Schema coverage is low, so this compensates well.

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 clearly states 'List all research files in the project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_profiles and list_validations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_profiles or get_research_prompt. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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