List Methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only status, no pagination behavior, no scope or filtering semantics, no error conditions.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is essentially no content to be concise about.

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?

A 4-parameter tool with a required binary path, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and a large sibling set that includes list_functions — the description gives the agent nothing needed to call it correctly.

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?

Four parameters (binary, filter, limit, offset) with 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about any of them — not what 'binary' accepts, not what 'filter' matches on, not pagination semantics.

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 only says it is an alias of list_functions; it never states the verb+resource itself (list methods/functions in a binary). An agent must already know what list_functions does, and list_functions's own description is not available to it.

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 parenthetical 'compatibility for legacy tool-name habits' weakly implies this exists only for backward compatibility, but it never says explicitly to prefer list_functions or when this variant should be chosen instead.

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