list_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool lists and filters, but remains silent on read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, return format, or any side effects. Essential traits for safe invocation are omitted.

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 with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it misses essential details. While efficient, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a slightly reduced score due to under-specification.

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 has 2 parameters (no schema descriptions) and an output schema (not provided), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the concept of 'registered concepts', the meaning of 'min_confidence' values, or the return structure. The context of use (e.g., as part of concept management) is not leveraged.

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 0%. The description only mentions 'min_confidence' filter but fails to explain acceptable values for this string parameter (e.g., 'low', 'medium', 'high') and completely ignores the 'k' parameter. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema names.

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 action ('List') and resource ('registered concepts'), and mentions the filter ('by minimum confidence'). It distinguishes from generic list tools like 'core_list' by focusing on concepts, though sibling differentiation is not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'core_list'. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description only hints at filtering but does not help with selection decision.

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