list_structural_drivers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the domain (98 drivers, root causes, breaking one weakens many pain points) but does not disclose operational behaviors such as read-only nature, return format, pagination, or any side effects. The 'list or search' wording implies a safe read operation, but it is not explicit.

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 primary action and resource, followed by a concise usage rationale. Every word earns its place—no fluff, redundancy, or irrelevant detail. It is an ideal length for quick agent parsing.

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 simple list/search tool with no output schema, the description provides strong conceptual context and usage guidance. It explains what the tool does, why it matters, and when to use it. However, it does not describe the return format or result structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Still, the overall coverage is solid for the tool's moderate complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, query, track) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameter semantics; it focuses on the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter explanation.

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 opens with 'List or search the 98 structural drivers', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further explains that drivers are the root causes generating pain points, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like search_pain_points or search_faq. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 states when this tool is appropriate: 'the right unit for 'why does this keep happening' and 'what should we actually fix' questions.' This gives clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions/alternatives' element.

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