banned_words_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It declares a read operation ('Show') with no side effects, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words or filler. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It tells what it does and connects it to scan_comments, making the context complete.

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 zero parameters (100% coverage by default), so the description adds no parameter information. Baseline is 4; the description correctly says nothing extraneous.

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 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'managed banned-word list used by scan_comments.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like banned_words_add and banned_words_remove by implying a read-only 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 implies the tool is for viewing the list, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like banned_words_add or banned_words_remove. No 'when-not-to-use' or context for selection is provided.

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