list_operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live', suggesting real-time data, and states a default limit, which gives some insight into its behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated beyond the limit, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, so it's at an acceptable baseline 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 sentence with three concise clauses: action ('List operators'), qualifier ('live'), filtering options, and default limit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values are not needed in the description), the description covers the essential aspects for calling: the action, available filters, and default limit. It does not mention pagination behavior or further semantics of the filters, which could be useful, but for a simple list operation it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions 'category and/or search', mapping to the category and search params, and 'default limit 500' explaining the limit param. This provides some semantic linkage but does not detail what search matches on (e.g., name, description) or how category filtering works. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but leaves gaps.

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 it lists operators, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering, which clarifies it's a query tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_operators, which also deals with operators, though the naming suggests a distinction. Overall the purpose is clear but the description could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 provides usage context by mentioning filtering by category and/or search, and a default limit of 500. It implies when to use this tool (to list operators with optional filters). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., search_operators). It leaves the decision to the agent, so it's adequate but not fully explicit.

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