list_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the content returned (normalization details, score ranges, and usage guidance), which sets expectations for a list operation. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a read-only listing tool this is not critical.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then succinctly enumerates the key detail categories. Every phrase contributes meaningful information with no waste.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers the relevant context by naming the specific methods and the types of information returned (normalization details, score ranges, usage guidance), making the output predictable.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not explain any parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter information to add.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'scoring methods' and enumerates the methods ('weighted_sum, weighted_product, topsis'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'score_options', which likely use these methods rather than list them.

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 states what the tool returns (normalization details, score ranges, and when to use each method), implying it is used to select/understand methods. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like 'score_options' or state when not to use it, so it lacks a clear exclusion.

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