list_trust_boundaries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions the return format (markdown list) and the optional type filter, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (though 'list' implies read-only), pagination, ordering, or scope restrictions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap 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 relatively short but contains redundancy: 'List all trust boundaries' and 'This tool lists all trust boundaries' convey the same information. The Args/Returns structure is clear, but the opening repetition adds unnecessary length. Overall, it is compact but not optimally concise.

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 list tool with an output schema (which covers return values), the description adequately explains the purpose and arguments. It does not provide context on when to use it or what types are available, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'type' is described in the schema as 'Optional type to filter trust boundaries'. The description repeats this exact phrase without adding new meaning, such as valid values or examples. The mention of 'ctx' is likely an internal context parameter not in the schema, but it does not clarify user-facing parameters. Baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 tool 'lists all trust boundaries' with a specific verb and resource. It repeats the purpose in the second sentence ('lists all trust boundaries in the system architecture'), which reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trust_boundary (single retrieval) and clear_trust_boundaries (delete all).

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies that this tool is for listing all trust boundaries, but does not explicitly say 'use this instead of get_trust_boundary' or mention any exclusions. The sibling context suggests list vs. get, but the description itself does not articulate these distinctions.

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