affiliate_list_client_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully describes the return format (array of objects with slug, hasStrategy, hasKpi, registered, orphan) and even explains the orphan flag's meaning. It also discloses data sources (brands.json and client directory on disk), making behavior transparent without speculating about side effects.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for use cases and return shape. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or redundant content. It front-loads the primary action and follows with essential details.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers all necessary context. It explains what is returned, the structure of each item, and the significance of the orphan flag. It also mentions data sources, making this tool self-contained and fully understandable for an agent.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description adds value by explaining the output structure, which is complementary to parameter understanding but not required.

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's function: listing which brands have advisory strategy recorded, covering both brands.json and any client directory on disk. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like affiliate_get_client_strategy (singular) and affiliate_set_client_strategy (write) by being a list operation. The verb 'List' and resource 'brands' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'Use this to drive a portfolio rollup or to prompt the operator to record strategy for a brand that has none.' It clearly implies when this list tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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