whitelist_list

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 only states 'Read', which implies non-mutating behavior, but offers no context on file location, error handling (e.g., if whitelist.json doesn't exist), or the structure of the returned data. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Read') and states the object clearly. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is almost sufficient. It tells the agent what is read but does not describe the return format or potential failure modes. An agent might expect a list of player names or raw JSON; specifying 'returns the JSON contents' or noting if an error occurs when the file is missing would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 'Read' and the resource 'whitelist.json contents', making it distinct from sibling tools like whitelist_add and whitelist_remove which modify. It also differentiates from other list tools (ops_list, banned_players_list) by naming the specific resource.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or reference sibling tools for different use cases. While the name implies a read operation, a more explicit statement like 'Use this to view the current whitelist, as opposed to adding or removing entries' would improve clarity.

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