list_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination and the shape of returned entries (id, name, url, uri), which is useful, but says nothing about page size, total counts, ordering, or whether results are filtered by default — gaps for a paginated list.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the return fields and filter. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates well for a simple 2-param read tool. It falls short only on pagination mechanics (page size, total pages), which an agent would need for reliable iteration.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the status enum and the 1-based page default. The description merely restates the enum values, adding no syntax or behavioral 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a paginated list of names from the SeqCode Registry') and enumerates the entry fields. The list-vs-single distinction against get_name is implied by the name and description, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Optionally filter by status' gives implied usage, and the enum values tell the agent what filters exist. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_seqcode or get_name, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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