xp3_list_schemes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the output fields are specified, but there is no explicit statement about safety, side effects, or whether the list is exhaustive or filtered. The meaning of 'status=ready' is ambiguous—whether all entries have status 'ready' or only ready schemes are shown.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and key output details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential return value (list of schemes with name, params schema, status). However, the ambiguity around 'status=ready' and the lack of any caveats or limitations prevent a perfect score. The presence of sibling resolver tools suggests a broader workflow that this description does not hint at.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List XP3 decryption schemes') and specifies the output fields (name, params schema, status=ready), making it clear what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like xp3_resolve_scheme or npa_list_schemes due to the XP3 scope and 'list' action.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states the function without context, so an agent would have to infer when listing schemes is appropriate.

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