List Aliases

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavior such as return format, ordering, error conditions, or side effects. For a list operation, some indication of what is returned or how aliases are defined would be expected.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 trivial parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it does not explain what an 'alias' is or why one might list them, which could be relevant given the rich set of sibling tools. A bit more context about the domain of aliases would improve completeness.

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 input schema fully covers the parameter dimension. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('all defined aliases'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from obvious siblings like set_alias, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. A clear purpose with a minor lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer its usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large set of sibling tools.

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