List Systems

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

With readOnlyHint annotation provided, the description adds value by specifying the return type (list of FQDNs) and the effect of filter_type. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional detail on output behavior, though it omits potential nuances like pagination or authentication requirements.

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 core purpose, and each sentence adds valuable information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 three parameters are fully described in the schema and the description clarifies filter semantics, the tool is well-specified. The return format is mentioned, and no critical information seems missing for a list operation.

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%, so parameters are already described, but the description enhances filter_type semantics (available vs free vs all) and hostname matching (contains match). This adds meaning beyond the schema's reference to defaults and matching rules.

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 Beaker systems with filtering capabilities, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from search_systems by focusing on list operations with filter criteria like availability and hostname substring.

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 clear context on filter usage (available, free, all) and explains their semantics, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_systems. It lacks exclusionary guidance but gives enough context for typical use cases.

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