list_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the schema by specifying 'loaded by the server', which clarifies the data source. However, it doesn't disclose return format, ordering, or potential performance implications. Given the low bar set by annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it adds moderate value without describing full 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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the entire purpose without any filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is fully adequate. It clearly states what is listed (local and remote bundles) and the condition (loaded by the server). With no output schema required, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

With zero parameters and the schema being empty, there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for tools with 0 parameters. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and needs no further clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('OKF bundles'), and scopes it precisely to 'local and remote' and 'currently loaded by the server'. This differentiates it from the sibling 'list_remote_bundles', which suggests a narrower scope. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from peers.

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 clearly establishes context (local and remote bundles loaded by the server) without explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It would benefit from a pointer to 'list_remote_bundles' for remote-only queries, but the absence of that doesn't mislead; the scope is self-evident. No exclusions are needed for a simple listing tool.

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