whim_facts_list

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. Since this is a list operation, it likely reads data, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of redundant details, effectively communicating the essence.

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?

While the description indicates the tool lists fact names, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array, object), nor does it mention potential edge cases, errors, or sorting/order. Given no output schema is provided, these details are missing, though the core behavior is understandable.

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 has no parameters, and the schema already fully describes this (empty properties). The description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable given the trivial case, but it does not go beyond the schema to provide any additional clarity.

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 action (list), the resource (saved fact names), and the scope (all). It directly conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 (e.g., whim_facts_get for a single fact, or list operations for other resources). The description lacks any mention of suitable contexts or exclusions.

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