corpus_list

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond those by specifying the response includes chunk and video counts, which is not provided in any schema. This gives the agent a better idea of what to expect from the tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and key output detail without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent that the tool lists all corpora and includes chunk and video counts, which is enough to use it correctly. However, it could be slightly clearer about whether counts are per corpus or totals.

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 are no parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description provides sufficient context for the tool's behavior.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all available corpora', and adds that it includes 'chunk and video counts', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like corpus_create, corpus_add, corpus_search, and corpus_delete. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to see all corpora and their counts, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the tool is a simple list-all operation, the context is clear, but there is no explicit guidance relative to sibling tools like corpus_search.

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