kratos_list_constitutive_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List' and gives examples, but it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, error behavior, or any special constraints. For a simple listing tool, the description adds some clarity but not rich behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that includes purpose, examples, and a filter reference. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 existence of an output schema covers return values, and the low complexity of a list tool reduces informational needs. However, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a notable gap in the overall context. The reference to kratos_list_elements partially mitigates this, but the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only says 'optional filters' without detailing what the 'application' and 'name_filter' parameters do or which filters are supported. The reference to kratos_list_elements is indirect and does not make up for the lack of explicit parameter documentation.

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 action ('List'), the specific resource ('constitutive law names registered in Kratos'), and provides concrete examples (LinearElastic3DLaw, Newtonian2DLaw). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kratos_list_elements by targeting constitutive laws specifically.

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 phrase 'with optional filters as in kratos_list_elements' explicitly references a sibling tool to indicate how filters are used, providing clear contextual usage. It implies this tool is for constitutive laws and that filter behavior matches an existing pattern, though it doesn't formally contrast with alternatives.

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