cortex_list_responders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or the meaning of 'enabled'. This lack of detail leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional filter.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. However, it lacks details about the return structure or any pagination, making it slightly incomplete for complex use cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'dataType' parameter. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by data type' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'enabled responders', and the optional filter by data type. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'cortex_list_analyzers' (for analyzers) and 'cortex_list_responder_definitions' (for definitions, not just enabled).

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 enabled responders with optional filtering) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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