list_claim_fragments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fragments are verified and trace to CLAIMS_BANK.md, implying a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or performance characteristics, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains purpose and usage. It covers the source of fragments and their role, making it complete for a list tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate because there are none.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'verified resume building blocks from _genlib.py (roles, bullets, projects)', and specifies the domain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_resume and verify_resume.

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 explains when to use this tool: to obtain resume fragments that trace to CLAIMS_BANK.md, and advises building resumes only from these names for output honesty. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is clear.

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