list_ksi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capability and pagination-like parameters (limit/offset), but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure), whether it's read-only or has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a listing tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides alternative usage guidance, and the third adds clarifying context. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded with parameter guidance.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose and provides one usage alternative, but fails to address parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral aspects needed for a listing tool with multiple filtering options. The complexity warrants more comprehensive documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filters' and implies filtering by category, but doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters (id, text, category, status, limit, offset) beyond the generic mention. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, failing to clarify what these parameters mean or how they work.

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's purpose: 'List individual KSI requirement entries' with examples like 'KSI-IAM-01, KSI-CNA-02' and mentions optional filtering. It specifies the resource (KSI requirement entries) and verb (list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond mentioning one alternative (get_frmr_document).

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 explicit guidance on when to use an alternative tool: 'To see all KSI categories and their descriptions, use get_frmr_document with path 'FRMR.KSI.key-security-indicators.json' instead.' This clearly distinguishes between listing specific requirements vs. viewing categories. However, it doesn't mention other potential alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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