list aliases

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent, and the description adds the endpoint, API-key scope, sorting behavior (name ascending), and nuanced null semantics for last_evidence_run_id. It also exposes the full response envelope so the agent knows exactly what to expect beyond the safety profile.

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 structured with a concise purpose sentence, endpoint/auth note, explicit return shape, and a focused note about null behavior. Each part provides actionable information without duplication, so it is appropriately sized for a rich read-only list operation.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description compensates with a full field list, enum values, null semantics, sort order, and authentication scope. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly in a workspace context.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('this workspace's model aliases'), and enumerates exactly what is included (target, canary split, quality-gate config, evidence policy, authoring eval run). This clearly distinguishes the read-only listing from mutation siblings like upsert_alias and delete_alias.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant: inspecting the stable names your code calls and their current routing details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only 'GET /v1/aliases' phrasing plus sibling names make the usage context unambiguous.

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