hydra_list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that operations missing from the list will be rejected, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose the return format or whether the list includes enums or default values.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a crucial usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete: it tells the agent when to call it and the key fact that missing operations are rejected. It could potentially mention that hydra_describe_operation provides details, but that is a minor gap.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 the 18 transformation operations of Hydra ETL with their required parameters, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hydra_describe_operation, but the distinction is implied by the focus on listing operations.

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 instructs to call this BEFORE writing a transformations.yaml, providing clear usage context. It also implicitly excludes operations not in the list, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like hydra_describe_operation for detailed info on a specific operation.

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