get_supported_ilks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. However, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, required authentication, or any side effects. A tool that lists data should explicitly state it is a safe read operation to build agent trust.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the typical return format or structure. It only states what is listed but not how to interpret the response. The tool is simple enough that a 3 is adequate, but it could be more informative.

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 100% with the 'network' parameter already documented. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond 'for a network', so baseline of 3 is appropriate without extra value.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resources 'configured collateral types and PSM joins' for a network. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_supported_networks' and 'get_psm_status' by specifying the exact items being listed.

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 only states it lists for a network, providing no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit context for appropriate use cases. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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