gavaza_breach_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'List all breaches' and does not mention return format, pagination, potential side effects, or access requirements. A read-only action is implied but not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral context is provided.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly states the operation and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it is slightly under-specified, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'register' refers to or provide any additional context about the tool's role in the broader workflow. It is adequate but leaves room for more detail.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds a small amount of semantic context by specifying 'all breaches' and 'register', but since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List'), the resource ('breaches'), and the scope ('all' and 'in the register'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gavaza_breach_add (which adds breaches) and other list tools by specifying the exact resource.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like gavaza_requests_list or gavaza_evidence_list. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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