list_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions deprecation and the alias behavior, but does not describe any behavioral aspects like safety, side effects, or permissions. The agent is left to infer behavior from the referenced function.

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 (one sentence) without unnecessary words. However, it is too brief to cover needed information like parameter semantics, making it efficient but insufficient.

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 tool is deprecated and has an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it should still help with parameters. It does not address how the two input parameters (cluster and min_confidence) affect the tool's behavior. The lack of guidance reduces its completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters (cluster, min_confidence). It does not mention them at all, only referencing a hardcoded kind='claims' which is not an input parameter. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is a deprecated alias for read_cluster_memory(kind='claims'), specifying the verb and resource, and differentiating it from siblings by pointing to the recommended alternative.

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?

Explicitly advises against use by labeling it deprecated and directing the agent to use read_cluster_memory instead, providing clear when-not and alternative guidance.

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