list-premises

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 lists premises from a session's knowledge base and provides an example output format, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and an example, all in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and provides an output example, but lacks details on error handling or behavioral constraints. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (session_id and verbosity). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of verbosity levels on the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'premises in a session's knowledge base', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assert-premise' (adds premises) and 'query-session' (queries premises) by focusing on listing all premises without modification or querying.

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 explicitly includes a 'When to use' section stating 'Review what has been asserted so far', providing clear context for usage. It distinguishes from alternatives by implying this is for listing all premises rather than querying specific ones (vs. 'query-session') or modifying them (vs. 'assert-premise', 'retract-premise').

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