list_system_json

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 the tool returns a list with specific fields (names, domains, descriptions), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second specifies the return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for a list operation. It explains what is returned, but could improve by addressing potential behavioral aspects like ordering or completeness of the list. However, it adequately covers the core functionality without being overly complex.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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 specific action ('List all available') and resource ('system JSON files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_system_json' (likely retrieves one file) and 'search_system_json' (likely filters results). It explicitly mentions what information is returned (names, domains, descriptions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when needing a comprehensive list of all system JSON files without filtering, as opposed to 'search_system_json' which likely allows filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, missing full explicit guidance.

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