List Vocabularies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by specifying the return format (list of ConceptSchemes with labels and concept counts, ordered by count descending), which is beyond annotation coverage.

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 two sentences plus a structured Args/Returns section. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and well-organized for quick parsing.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, safety annotations), the description covers the essential behavior. It returns a list with ordering and fields, which is adequate for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description documents the 'limit' parameter with a default value of 20, providing meaning beyond the schema's type and default. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is sufficient compensation.

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 lists available Controlled Vocabularies (ConceptSchemes) with instance counts. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'ConceptSchemes' differentiate it from sibling tools like browse_vocabulary or search_in_vocabulary.

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 browsing vocabularies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like explore_catalog or list_ontologies. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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