list_operations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the spec is 'public' and 'checked-in,' which suggests the operation is read-only and requires no special access. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or describe the output format, though the output schema covers the latter.

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 verb and object immediately. There is no redundant language or unnecessary detail, making it 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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (covering return values), and the purpose is straightforward, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. The 'public' and 'checked-in' qualifiers add useful context without overexplaining.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty input schema already shows. The description accurately implies a parameterless invocation, and the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 'List all operations in the checked-in public BlazeMeter v4 explorer spec' uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('operations') and scope ('checked-in public BlazeMeter v4 explorer spec'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools get_operation and invoke_operation, which imply single-item access and execution respectively.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for enumerating all operations, implying it should be used to discover available operation names before calling get_operation or invoke_operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score.

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