cpu_list_syndicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states 'Public read,' indicating no side effects or auth requirements, and it describes the return contents (fee rates, member count, manager address, creation time). It stops short of noting potential empty results or default ordering, but for a read-only browsing tool this is strong coverage.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, syndicate definition, feature list, return contents, and access level. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by specifying the rendered card contents and covering all input dimensions (name filter, member-count band, sort, pagination). It does not detail the exact fee categories or response list format, but it is sufficient for a browsing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented individually. The description adds a grouping insight ('member-count band' for min/max members) and lists sort values, but it doesn't provide significant new syntax beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Browse the syndicate registry,' clearly stating a list/read operation for a specific resource (syndicates). It distinguishes from siblings like cpu_get_syndicate by using 'browse' and 'registry,' and it enumerates filtering, sorting, and paging capabilities.

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 clear context (public read, browse all syndicates) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like cpu_get_syndicate for single-syndicate details. The 'browse' wording implies the list use case, but the guidance is not explicit.

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