list_criteria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name — the response includes match counts per criterion — but says nothing about permissions, ordering, result size, or that the listed criteria feed into rules/alert evaluation. Behavior is partially, not fully, disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states purpose and scope, followed by a short param note. The only waste is the 'Args:' formatting convention, which is slightly redundant with the schema but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered in prose. The remaining gap is contextual: without annotations or prose, the agent learns nothing about ordering, limits, or how the disabled-criterion state ties to set_criterion_enabled.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining that include_disabled pulls in criteria that are currently turned off. It omits the schema's default of true, which is a minor gap but leaves the practical 'what happens if I omit it' question partly unanswered.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the judging criteria') plus a scope detail ('how often each has matched'), which distinguishes it from the mutating siblings add_criterion, delete_criterion and set_criterion_enabled. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from verb semantics alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'. There is no statement of when to call this versus browsing criteria another way, nor any prerequisite or context such as needing auth first. For a simple enumeration tool this is adequate but thin.

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