caldera_list_operations

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

Although no annotations exist, the description is clear that this is a read-only operation that returns a list. It mentions the output format and fields. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. Still, for a simple list, it provides adequate behavioral context.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The key action and return format are front-loaded. There is no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose, return format, and fields. No additional context is needed for this straightforward listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate. According to guidance, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 lists all operations, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'operations'. It also specifies what is returned (current state and progress) and the format (JSON string with id, name, state, adversary, progress). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, update, or get single 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context or exclusions are given. With many related tools (e.g., get_operation, set_operation_state), better usage guidelines would be helpful.

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