List Hermes API toolsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, giving a strong safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail 'writing redacted receipts,' which reveals a side effect (receipt logging) not covered by any annotation. This is meaningful added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Typed GET /v1/toolsets wrapper'), and includes the key behavioral detail (redacted receipts). Zero wasted 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?

There's an output schema present, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers all 3 parameters. The description competently handles this simple list tool. Slight deduction for not clarifying the 'currently reserved' status of parameters in the description itself, but the schema already conveys that.

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 baseline is 3. Each parameter (limit, offset, category) is already well-documented in the schema with descriptions and default values. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to given full coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Typed GET /v1/toolsets wrapper that lists available toolsets') and clearly distinguishes it as a list operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would correctly identify this as a list/catalog operation. It's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like hermes_api_skills_list or hermes_profiles_list. It doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives. A line about when one might prefer this over other list tools would substantially help.

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