List UCS

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral context: the guaranteed 'world' row, the condition for 'current' to be world, handling of unnamed UCS as a trailing row with null name, and 'No refusals.' These are useful edge-case behaviors not covered by annotations, though the phrasing is dense and could be clearer.

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 long, dense paragraph that is not front-loaded with a clear purpose. It includes cryptic fragments like 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' that do not obviously help an agent invoke the tool, and the overall structure is hard to parse.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it spends most of its text on output semantics. It adds valuable edge-case context for a complex domain, but it fails to state the tool's basic purpose or when to call it, leaving the definition only minimally complete for an agent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 never states a clear verb+resource like 'Lists all UCS definitions'; instead it starts mid-thought with 'The world row first...', forcing the reader to infer the purpose from the returned content. It does distinguish the tool from siblings by describing the list output, but the lack of a direct purpose statement makes it only adequately clear.

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 guidance on when to use ucs_list versus ucs_set or ucs_restore. It provides interpretation details for the output but never explains when this tool is the right choice or what prerequisites exist.

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