list_local_studies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the operation is free (no cost/side effects) and it deliberately withholds wallet keys and access credentials, which is a meaningful data-exposure boundary. It does not describe return format or ordering, but that gap is minor.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the cost and privacy notes following in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned (IDs and purchase identifiers), that it is free, the use case (recovery after restart), and the privacy boundary. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the return content is characterized in prose.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('study IDs and purchase identifiers') scoped explicitly to what 'this adapter' retains, which cleanly separates it from the marketplace-oriented siblings (create_study, purchase_study, get_catalog). An agent can tell immediately that this reads local retained state rather than querying a remote catalog.

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?

'Free; use to recover work after restarting' gives a concrete trigger condition for calling it, which is genuinely useful guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., when to prefer get_catalog or get_study_status instead).

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