kernel_places_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail beyond the schema: results are ordered newest first, and the missing flag surfaces items that name a place but lack coordinates. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether results are paginated, or how the limit interacts with truncation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the ordering constraint is front-loaded. The opening fragment is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description omits the meaning of `kind` and `limit` and provides no routing guidance against the several sibling places tools, leaving meaningful 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It explains `missing` well, but leaves `kind` (a five-value enum) and `limit` (default 50) entirely unaddressed in the description, leaving the agent to infer filtering semantics and pagination limits from bare schema fields.

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 identifies the resource ("Known places") and its ordering ("newest first"), but the phrasing is a noun fragment with no verb and never clarifies what counts as a "place" in this system. It also gives no differentiation from the sibling listing tools kernel_places_search or kernel_places_near, so an agent must guess whether this is an unfiltered dump of all places.

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?

Usage is only implied: the default mode is clearly a full listing, and the description does specify one mode switch ("missing: true"). There is no guidance on when to prefer this over kernel_places_search or kernel_places_near, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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