List External Namespaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses useful behavior: these are authorized namespaces, they map to PhyloPic node resolution, and each entry carries an authority plus a namespace identifier. It doesn't discuss pagination, ordering, or auth requirements, but for a zero-argument read-only enumeration this is solid coverage.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by examples and the returned fields. Slight verbosity in the example list, but every sentence carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the results conceptually contain, and why they exist. The only missing piece is explicit routing guidance to resolve_external_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Zero parameters means no parameter semantics are needed, which is the baseline 4. The description does add value by explaining the shape of each returned namespace (authority + identifier), which compensates for the absent output 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (authorized external taxonomic database namespaces) with concrete examples (GBIF, Open Tree of Life, NCBI, Paleobiology Database). An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from resolve_external_id, which consumes the namespaces this tool returns.

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 implies the purpose (resolving external identifiers to PhyloPic nodes) but never explicitly says when to call this versus sibling tools like resolve_external_id or search_taxa, nor states prerequisites such as calling this first to discover valid namespace values. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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