List Namespaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description must describe behavior fully. It mentions it is a listing operation (non-destructive) and returns a hierarchical view with counts, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then provides usage guidance. Exceptionally concise.

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 no output schema, the description mentions a 'hierarchical view' and 'counts per namespace node,' which gives some expectation. With 3 optional parameters and no annotations, this is reasonably complete, though it could elaborate on the return format.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only provides context. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists translation key trees grouped by namespace prefix with counts, and distinguishes itself as a way to explore keys without guessing paths. It has a specific verb and resource, and contrasts with siblings implicitly.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to explore available keys without guessing path prefixes,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the sibling list includes many alternatives.

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