list criteria

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by explaining the endpoint, API-key scope, the list response shape, the difference between trust and tier, and the derived nature of drift_status/drift_signal with detailed meanings for each enum value. This is substantial added behavioral context.

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?

Although long, the description is dense and every section earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is included because there is no output schema, and the notes clarify ambiguous computed fields. The structure is logical and avoids repetition.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response and key semantics. It enumerates every returned field and explains trust, tier, drift_status, and drift_signal sufficiently for an agent to interpret results correctly. Nothing essential appears missing.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List this workspace's judge criteria' and enumerates what is included (calibration metrics, trust verdict, drift status, online-monitoring config). It also states the intended decision ('to see which judges are proven enough to gate on'), which clearly distinguishes this list-all tool from siblings like get_criterion or list_criterion_templates.

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 gives a clear context and intended use case: reviewing judges to determine which ones are safe to gate on. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the purpose is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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