list_facts

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

The description discloses that only active (non-invalidated) facts are listed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, more details would be helpful, such as whether results are paginated, how large the response can be, or if any permissions are required. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return format details.

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 concise with two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is directly stated. No extraneous words 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?

Given the number of sibling tools (44), the description provides a basic distinction via 'active (non-invalidated)' but does not clearly differentiate from other fact-related tools like facts_at_time or fact_supersession_chain. The schema and output schema exist but are not described. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks full contextual completeness.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly mentions 'subject' by referencing 'what structured facts Lore knows about a subject,' but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any other details. The description is insufficient for the 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 clearly states the tool lists active (non-invalidated) facts from the knowledge base. The verb 'list' and resource 'facts' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling fact tools like extract_facts or facts_at_time, which would strengthen clarity.

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 includes 'USE THIS WHEN' guidance for viewing facts about a subject or all facts, which provides context. But it lacks when-not-to-use instructions and does not mention alternative tools for other fact operations (e.g., extraction, temporal queries).

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