list_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (operations[{name,arity,description,angle_sensitive}]) and confirms no arguments are needed. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect-free, but that is strongly implied for a list operation.

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, using two short sentences plus an example. Every element—when to use, parameter expectations, and return shape—is packed efficiently, with no wasted words.

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?

This is a simple introspection tool with no parameters and a clear output example. The description covers the trigger scenario and the expected return structure, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The output schema (if present) would further detail the fields, but the description already provides the essentials.

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 has zero parameters, which yields a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this with 'Params: none' and 'call with no args', leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('unknown function/operator name... or exploring arity') but does not explicitly state 'list operations' as the core action. The name and example make the purpose clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_constants and list_unit_conversions.

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 explicit usage conditions: when an unknown function/operator name appears after evaluate unknown_token, or when exploring arity. It also states 'Params: none' and gives a call example, making it clear how and when to invoke the tool.

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