List KWS Queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which adequately convey the tool's safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond a simple list operation, which is acceptable given the annotations but misses the opportunity to mention features like filtering or pagination.

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, very concise and to the point. It could be slightly expanded to add context without harming conciseness, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has 7 optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not mention filtering, sorting, pagination, or return format, which are important for proper use. The schema provides details, but the description lacks overarching context.

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 100%, with each of the 7 parameters well-described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List keyword spotting queries' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'keyword spotting queries', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like transkribus_kws_create_query or transkribus_kws_get_hits, which also deal with KWS queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list queries versus creating new ones or retrieving hits. There are no hints about preferred contexts or exclusions.

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