list_system_properties

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the schema and annotations. It does not mention pagination, result size, or performance implications of openWorldHint. Although readOnlyHint covers safety, the description contributes little to transparency.

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 communicates the essential action with no redundant words or filler. It earns a perfect score for brevity.

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?

Despite the simple nature of the tool, the description lacks any mention of return value structure or relationship to the many sibling property-related tools. Since no output schema is provided, the description should have provided more context about the response and typical use cases.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'optional filtering' adds no additional semantic meaning. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('system properties') with a clear scope ('with optional filtering'). It effectively conveys the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_system_properties' tool.

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 like search_system_properties or get_system_property. The description only states the action and optional filtering, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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