list_corpora

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' and lists output fields, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like potential performance costs. Given annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with two informative sentences. It front-loads the action and output, then adds usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what is listed, the output details, and the use case. Annotations cover safety, so no gaps remain.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. It provides context on the output (every corpus with manifest), so baseline 4 is suitable.

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 'every corpus saved on disk', and specifies the manifest fields (scope, project_root, sizes, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_corpus or delete_corpus by indicating it is for discovery.

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 explicitly says 'Use to discover what corpora are available to query', which provides a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools, though the sibling list makes differentiation obvious.

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