list_tensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds context about the kind of content returned (tensions, contradictions, myths) and the dual filtering modes. No return format, pagination, or error behavior is described, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the content type with examples, the second describes parameter usage. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted words.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (tensions, contradictions, myths) and how to filter. It's nearly complete, missing only minor details like what happens when no parameters are passed (apparently returns all tensions).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of principle_id (filter to one principle's tensions) and query (text search), giving semantic meaning beyond the parameter names. It doesn't specify format or default behavior (both default to empty string), but the usage is clear.

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 a specific verb+resource: it lists documented tensions, contradictions, and myths associated with a lens. The examples help clarify the domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_principle or search_evidence, though the resource is distinct enough.

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 gives clear guidance on how to use parameters: pass a principle id to filter to that principle's tensions, or pass a text query. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the parameter behavior is well indicated.

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