list_assertions_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action and filter options, but does not disclose return format, pagination, combined filter semantics, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and includes all necessary filter information without redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description covers the core behavior and filters. However, with no output schema, the agent does not know the shape of the returned list, and edge cases like missing projectId or combined filters are not addressed. The sibling context helps, but the description itself is incomplete for a fully aware invocation.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explicitly lists the acceptable assertionType values ('type, behavior, invariant, contract') and mentions regionId as a filter. projectId is not described, but its name and required status make it self-explanatory.

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 clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('assertions in the synthesis theory') and optional filters. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like add_assertion_tool and contract_assertion_tool, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to list assertions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple list operation, the context is clear 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.