list_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only frontmatter summaries are returned (not full content), that the source is scoped to this repo's okf/ bundle, and that filtering is optional. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a read-only list operation, though it does not mention pagination or exact response shape.

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 states the action, resource, scope, and filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the source bundle, the nature of the returned data (summaries/frontmatter), and the filter capability. It does not detail the exact return structure, but 'list' and 'summaries' imply a collection of summary objects, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. A slight gap is not explicitly stating that no filters returns all concepts, but this is inferred.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (tags and type) with clear semantics: tags match any, type is exact frontmatter type. The description adds the high-level 'optionally filtered by type and/or tags' but does not provide new meaning beyond what the schema already states. With 100% schema coverage, 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 OKF concept summaries from the repo's okf/ bundle, with the specific scope of 'frontmatter only.' This verb+resource+scope makes it distinct from sibling tools like read_concept (which reads an individual concept) and find_concept_by_resource (which searches by resource).

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 when to use the tool: when you need summaries/frontmatter from the okf/ bundle, possibly filtered by type/tags. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to infer that full content would require read_concept. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, scoring a 4.

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