surety__list_bonds

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only indicates a read operation (listing bonds) but omits information on pagination, authorization, rate limits, or the meaning of bond states. The absence of behavioral context limits transparency.

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 short but includes a bracketed category prefix '[surety — bonding + ruling-gated slashing (risk transfer)]' that adds noise without aiding agent selection. The core sentence is concise, but the structure could be improved by removing the prefix or integrating it more effectively.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the agent lacks critical information: return format, field descriptions, pagination behavior, and the meaning of bond states. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the tool underspecified for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter description (0% coverage). The description lists the valid filter values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain default behavior when state is null or how the output is structured, leaving gaps.

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 bonds and optionally filters by state with explicit values (POSTED|ACTIVE|RELEASED|EXHAUSTED). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool surety__bond_status, though 'list' vs 'status' implies different use cases.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as surety__bond_status or other surety tools. The description only mentions the optional filter but lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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