list_corpora

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context that the listing surfaces audit/verification state, but it omits scope details like pagination or result limits. Consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and core output are front-loaded, and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

For a simple listing tool with full schema coverage, rich read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. The only real gap is the absence of sibling-routing guidance, which was already penalized under usage guidelines.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (task, language, include_derivatives) are already documented. The description loosely hints at the filters via 'language/task/config variants' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-resource pair ('List ... variants') and tells the agent what kind of data is returned (language/task/config variants plus audit and verification state). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like audit_corpus or corpus_stats, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as audit_corpus, corpus_stats, and compare_corpora, an agent gets no help deciding between listing state and performing an audit or computing stats. Only implicit usage is conveyed by the verb 'List.'

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