co_list_keywords

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current document' scoping context but does not explain how that document is selected or what the response shape is, so it provides only modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and every word carries meaning. This is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation, the description covers the essential operation and scope. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe output shape or how 'current document' is established, but these are minor for such a simple tool.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the limit parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself is clear (optional integer with default 500, min 1, max 5000) and the parameter name is intuitive, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 names the resource (keywords) and the scope (current document), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling list tools. It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'Lists all keywords...', which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

It offers only implied usage: for reading keywords in the current document. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus co_list_variants, co_list_documents, or other list siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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