list_cp_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or authentication requirements. It only states it 'lists' CP codes, implying a read operation, but lacks further behavioral context such as rate limits or output details.

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 short (two sentences plus example questions) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part is useful, though the example questions could be considered slightly redundant.

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 two required parameters (both documented in schema) and an output schema, the description is adequate. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (no annotations) reduces completeness for an agent needing to understand side effects or constraints.

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 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool lists CP codes for a contract and group, defines CP codes as numeric identifiers, and differentiates from sibling tools which cover other domains like edgeworkers, DNS zones, etc.

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 includes example questions that illustrate when to use the tool (e.g., 'What CP codes are available for this contract?'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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