list_class_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it states that requirements describe only what must be PRESENT, that nothing may be inferred about unnamed fields, that the tool verifies presence and not truth, that tool_misuse returns a documented negative result rather than an error, and that results must never be relayed as a safety guarantee.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and subsequent sentences each add distinct constraints (required vs supporting, per-tier sets, negative result, presence-vs-truth caveat). It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers selector semantics, what the result contains (required vs supporting, per-tier sets), and critical interpretive limits. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though return shape specifics are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the 'universal' option and the special tool_misuse return behavior.

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?

It names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('evidence requirements for one failure class') and enumerates the exact valid class values, including the 'universal' special case. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_requirement', which could plausibly be chosen instead.

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 clarifies the 'universal' selector and explains tool_misuse's negative-result behavior, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-'get_requirement'/'check_trace_readiness' guidance and no exclusions, so routing remains implied.

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