redm-list-native-namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or cached; what format the output takes; or any potential limitations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of namespaces. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or behavioral aspects like ordering or limits. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available native function namespaces,' making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'redm-browse-namespace' or 'redm-search-natives' by focusing on listing rather than browsing or searching.

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 implies usage for retrieving a list of namespaces, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redm-browse-namespace' or 'redm-search-natives.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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