list_standard_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns accurate count and list from Watson Orchestrate', indicating a read-only operation and data source, and asserts accuracy. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, which would be useful, but it does cover the most important behavioral traits.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose immediately. There is some redundancy between 'tools with no connections' and 'tools with empty/missing security and connection_id', and the 'Do not guess' clause is somewhat extraneous, but overall it is efficient and not bloated.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter), and the description covers purpose, usage, and data source. However, it never explains the 'limit' parameter or details the return structure beyond a 'count and list'. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave the agent with some uncertainty about how to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 schema describes a single 'limit' parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description completely ignores this parameter, leaving its meaning ambiguous (e.g., result cap, timeout, or something else). Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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' and the resource 'standard tools', and immediately defines them as 'tools with no connections', distinguishing it from the sibling tool list_tools_with_connections. The phrase 'only standard tools' reinforces the exclusive scope.

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 to use it for 'list standard tools' or 'tools with no connections' and gives the criteria 'empty/missing security and connection_id'. It does not name an alternative for connected tools, but the sibling list_tools_with_connections implies the opposite use case, and 'Do not guess' adds practical guidance.

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