list_disciplines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it lists data with counts and optional filtering, but no mention of read-only nature, error conditions, or side effects. For a simple list operation, the minimal description is insufficient for full 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and result. No verbose or redundant text.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, for a list operation with optional filtering, the description lacks details on pagination, sorting, or what 'counts' means. It is minimally complete but could benefit from additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds that 'category' is an optional filter, but does not explain valid values, format, or constraints like null handling. With one parameter, this is inadequate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'CSL disciplines', and specifies it returns 'counts'. The tool name 'list_disciplines' reinforces this. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_paper' and 'search_papers', the acronym 'CSL' is assumed known.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' or 'get_dataset_statistics'. The only usage hint is 'Optionally filter by category', which implies use cases but does not compare to other tools.

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