list_incarnations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, side effects, or return format details. The word 'all' provides some scope transparency but not enough to understand tool behavior beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that effectively states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is under-specified relative to more complex tools but is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks additional context that could improve usefulness.

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 is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, the description's brevity is partly justified. However, it does not mention what the output represents, whether it is ordered, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_current_incarnation or switch_incarnation. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about practical usage.

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 has zero parameters, which yields a baseline score of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema confirms an empty parameter object. The description’s simplicity is appropriate here.

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 available incarnations' uses a clear verb (list) and resource (incarnations), indicating a straightforward read operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_incarnation and switch_incarnation, which clearly serve different purposes. However, it lacks details on what 'available' means or how this listing fits into the broader workflow.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where listing all incarnations is appropriate, nor any exclusions or references to sibling tools. The description simply states the action without contextual advice.

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