rm_list_disciplines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'configured' qualifier, which suggests only system-defined disciplines are returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the result set is exhaustive. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element ('List', 'all', 'configured', 'disciplines') contributes to agent understanding.

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 list tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is fully sufficient. There are no missing argument details, and the output schema handles return-value documentation. The description tells the agent exactly what the operation does.

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 is trivially complete and the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description's focus on the result set is appropriate.

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 'List all configured disciplines' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('disciplines'), and states the scope ('all'). The sibling tools rm_create_discipline, rm_update_discipline, and rm_delete_discipline make it easy to distinguish this read operation from mutation 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 clearly implies this is the retrieval counterpart to the discipline mutation tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the list-oriented wording and 'all configured disciplines' scope leave little ambiguity; an agent would use this when it needs the full set of disciplines rather than creating, updating, or deleting one.

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