list_primitives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states both the operation and the output shape: a list of all primitives, each with a one-line description. For a simple zero-parameter enumeration tool, this is sufficiently transparent, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or exact return format.

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 no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the only important output detail: the one-line description per primitive.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough information for an agent to know what it will get and when to call it. It could optionally mention whether results are sorted or paginated, but for this simple enumeration tool that is not a significant gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter meaning. The input schema fully covers the input surface, and the description appropriately describes an input-free operation.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns all available Radix primitives'. The phrase 'all available' plus 'with a one-line description' distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_primitive, which presumably fetches a single primitive.

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 this is the tool to use when you need an overall list of Radix primitives, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of get_primitive, get_composition_pattern, or get_caveats. Usage context is mostly inferred from the word 'all' rather than stated.

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