list_crystals

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states it lists pre-computed crystal answers but omits details like pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and does not disclose important behaviors beyond the basic 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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to provide necessary details given the lack of schema descriptions. It could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 description tells the basic purpose but leaves gaps: no param guidance, no usage context, and no behavioral details. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the returned data represents or any limitations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter cluster_slug. The description mentions 'for a cluster' but does not explain the format, source, or meaning of cluster_slug. This forces the agent to infer parameter semantics from context.

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 tool's function: listing pre-computed crystal answers for a cluster. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'crystal answers', distinguishing it from related tools like read_crystal (which likely retrieves a single crystal).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_crystal or list_claims. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for use.

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