mind_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but discloses the lifecycle state (deprecated, removed in v2.0) and the successor call, which is the key behavioral fact. It doesn't cover return format or auth, but for a deprecated read-style listing tool the lifecycle warning is the relevant disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the actionable warning (DEPRECATED + replacement) before the parenthetical description of what it did. 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?

For a deprecated, zero-param tool with no output schema, the entry gives the agent everything needed: what it did, that it is deprecated, the replacement call, and the removal version. Only a note on whether it still functions in the current version is arguably missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 parenthetical '(List all libraries)' states a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows what the tool did. However, the deprecated/replacement framing leads, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate scope against siblings like mind_library beyond naming the replacement.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool and to use mind_library(action="list") instead, plus states the removal version. The when-not-to-use and the alternative are both named with no inference required.

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