athena_hug_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well by explaining the empty-list meaning and explicitly warning against simulating an implementation. It implies this is a read-only listing operation, though it does not discuss potential error conditions, sorting, or pagination behavior.

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 exactly two sentences and front-loads the essential action ('List registered HUG implementations'), followed by the optional filter and a crucial caution. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and the empty-list interpretation. It does not describe the structure of returned items, but that is not strictly necessary for a safe list operation, making this description fairly complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by naming the possible status values (CANDIDATE/TESTED/CANONICAL) and noting the filter is optional. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in text, but the schema fully specifies it as an integer between 1 and 500, so the description compensates for the most semantically important parameter.

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 resource ('registered HUG implementations'), and mentions optional filtering by status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_hug_register or athena_hug_state, which handle other aspects of the HUG lifecycle.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (listing registered implementations) and gives an important caveat: an empty list means no semantic implementation is registered, and the agent should not simulate one. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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