List joined Oases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only operation by using 'show', but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or any error conditions. It also does not describe the format or detail of the returned data, which could be important for an agent. This is a modest disclosure for a simple read tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is efficient and memorable.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. It does not specify details like pagination, ordering, or the exact structure of the identity object, but given the lack of an output schema, these are not strictly required. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it without ambiguity.

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, and the schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain any parameters. With 100% schema coverage (trivially) and no parameters to clarify, the description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: showing the agent's Oase identity and the oases it has joined. The verb 'show' is specific and the resource is well-defined, making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like join_oase or send_message, which are clearly different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or recommend other tools for different scenarios. The only hint is the title 'List joined Oases', which implies usage for listing memberships, but no explicit instructions are given.

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