list_defect_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the content (defect classes and exclusions) and hints at the tool's non-destructive nature. It doesn't explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free, but for a list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence starting with the verb 'List'. Both clauses earn their place: the first specifies the main output, the second clarifies an important subtlety about verdict coverage. No filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the essential context. It explains what the tool returns and the specific caveat about COMPLETE verdict, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and output.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('modelled bounds-check defect classes'), and adds a clarifying nuance about what a COMPLETE verdict does not cover. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform checks or calculations.

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 context is clear: use this when you need an overview of defect classes or to understand the scope of a COMPLETE verdict. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the listing nature and unique focus differentiate it sufficiently.

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