List taxonomy terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds contextual behavior: it works across taxonomy types and supports search/ordering/hierarchy/pagination. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful context about scope beyond structured data.

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 sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core scope is front-loaded ('List terms in any taxonomy') followed by key capabilities. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential capabilities and taxonomy scope. It doesn't explain output format or edge cases like filtering by parent only applying to hierarchical taxonomies, but those are documented in the schema. The coverage is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description mentions search, ordering, hierarchy filtering, and pagination, which maps to the parameters but doesn't add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'List terms in any taxonomy' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies it works for categories, tags, and custom taxonomies. This distinguishes it from related tools like get_term (single term) and content listing tools, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for enumerating terms across any taxonomy, and mentions search, ordering, hierarchy filtering, and pagination. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_term or list_content, but the scope is obvious given it's about terms. Slight gap in not stating when to prefer a more specific tool, but the context is strong.

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