surety__list_bonds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. Despite listing being implicitly read-only, the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only, idempotent) or any side effects. This lack of transparency could lead an agent to misuse if the tool were destructive.

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 with a front-loaded domain prefix. It is efficient and includes essential filtering information. The prefix adds context but is not strictly necessary. Overall, it's concise without being terse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and filtering but omits return format, pagination, or state definitions. While minimal, it provides enough for basic usage; further details 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the schema provides no parameter descriptions. However, the description adds value by listing the valid state values (POSTED, ACTIVE, RELEASED, EXHAUSTED) and indicating the parameter is optional. This compensates for the schema gap, though it doesn't explain each state's meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'List bonds' with optional state filter, specifying exact valid values (POSTED, ACTIVE, RELEASED, EXHAUSTED). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling surety tools like surety__bond_status (single bond) and surety__activate_bond (action), making purpose unmistakable.

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: listing all bonds or filtering by state. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of listing vs. single-status tools is clear from the name. For a simple list, this is adequate, though no when-not guidance is given.

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