list_sketch_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It only says 'List' and names output fields; it does not disclose the default max_items truncation, filtering combination semantics, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds information about the resource or returned fields.

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 tool with four undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits parameter meaning, default limit behavior, and the relation to sibling tools like inspect_sketch_constraint, which is needed for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the four optional input parameters. kinds, max_items, sketch_ref, and document_id are left entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List existing sketch constraints') and names the fields returned (reference, index, fingerprint, owner entity), so an agent can tell this is the summary listing tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_sketch_dimensions or inspect_sketch_constraint, but the resource and output fields make the purpose clear.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; the agent must infer from the tool name and siblings. Nothing says to prefer this over list_sketch_dimensions or inspect_sketch_constraint, and there are no exclusions.

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