equivalence_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; 'List' and 'recorded confirmed' usefully signal a read-only operation that returns only confirmed entries, which is real behavioral content. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. The brevity is efficient rather than sloppy, though it leaves no room for the filtering details the tool needs.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter detail, and it supplies almost none. For a filtered-list tool an agent cannot call correctly without guessing, this is inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and only does so for 'workspace' via 'for a workspace'. It gives no indication of what file, n64Name, or ps2Name do, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recorded confirmed N64<->PS2 equivalences') plus a scope ('for a workspace'). The word 'List' implicitly contrasts with the sibling equivalence_record, though the description never names that sibling.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the word 'List' that this is the read counterpart to equivalence_record rather than a lookup-for-translation tool.

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