List Systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool 'Returns a list of system FQDNs filtered by availability status', which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose, describe the return value, and provide usage guidelines. No unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint, and an output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return type, and filter usage. It could mention handling of limit=0 or sorting, but these are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters (limit, filter_type) have detailed descriptions. The tool description reinforces the filter_type options but does not add new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 'List Beaker systems matching the filter criteria', providing a specific verb (List), resource (Beaker systems), and qualifier (matching filter criteria). It distinguishes from siblings like search_systems, which likely offers broader search capabilities.

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 guides the agent on when to use each filter value: 'Use 'available' for systems you can reserve, 'free' for idle ones, or 'all' for the complete inventory.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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