list_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that results are 'compact summaries', which implies a limited set of fields. This is a minor behavioral addition, but there is no mention of rate limits, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or other 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and resource 'OKF concept summaries'. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 description covers the tool's purpose and filter parameters, but does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields a 'compact summary' contains) or any edge cases. With no output schema, the description could be more complete to set expectations for the agent.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description merely restates the filter types (bundle, type, tag, text) without adding new semantic meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 it lists compact OKF concept summaries with optional filters, which is specific and distinguishes it from get_concept. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_concepts, which might provide similar functionality.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists filters but lacks explicit context for when each filter is appropriate or how this tool differs from other list/search tools in the sibling set.

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