principles.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, ensuring safe and repeatable behavior. The description adds context about 'stable slugs', providing a behavioral guarantee beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: the action and resource, then the optional filter. Highly efficient.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and filtering capability. Could mention return format but not required.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with one parameter that already has a clear description (filter by cluster slug, with example). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists doctrine principles with stable slugs, and optionally filters by cluster slug. The verb 'list' is specific to the resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'principles.get' (single principle) and 'principles.search' (likely text search).

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 usage for listing all principles or filtering by cluster, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'principles.search' or 'clusters.list'. Guidance is inferred but not explicit.

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