inforcer_baselines_list

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description repeats read-only and adds that results include baseline groups and their members, which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose result structure, pagination, or open-world limitations, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and no filler besides a harmless 'Read-only' repetition. It is efficient, scannable, and appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 read-only list with one optional parameter, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and primary filter. It does not detail result member shapes or pagination, but the low complexity and full schema coverage make this acceptable. The absence of sibling differentiation prevents a top score.

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 100%, and the schema already documents baseline_tenant_id as a filter by baseline (owner) Client Tenant ID. The description restates this filtering idea without adding format, boundaries, or behavioral details beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a concrete operation and resource: 'List baseline groups and their members,' and mentions the tenant filter, making the tool's scope discernible at a glance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like inforcer_groups_list, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inforcer_groups_list or inforcer_tenants_list. The only selection clue is the resource name 'baseline groups,' and there are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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