list_state_graphs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about memory resetting each session and scanning for YAML/JSON files, which clarifies the tool's ephemeral nature and file format focus. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or performance implications, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the action, memory behavior, scanning details, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the parenthetical about memory could be slightly rephrased for clarity. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and return format but lacks details on error cases, directory defaults, or how results are structured. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the single optional 'directory' parameter. The description adds marginal value by implying scanning occurs in 'graphs directories' and mentioning YAML/JSON files, but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available state graph files on disk' with the specific action of scanning for YAML/JSON files. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_nodes' or 'get_state_graph_info' by focusing on file discovery rather than graph content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 minimal usage guidance, mentioning that memory resets each session and it scans directories, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_graph' or 'get_state_graph_info'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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