list_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, and clarifies that it returns all items, not a filtered subset. It does not disclose output format, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and provides essential scope information without any fluff.

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 simple enumeration tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the resource type, scope, and framework context.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the no-filter nature by saying 'all available', which aligns with the empty input schema.

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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('all available primary emotional systems and named behavioral patterns'), and the context ('ASEKE framework'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch specific system or pattern info.

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 scope ('all available') implies this is the enumeration tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_system_info or get_pattern_info, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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