systems_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of 'user's saved' systems, but does not disclose additional behavior such as response format, ordering, or whether the open-world hint means results may include unsaved or external systems. This is acceptable but minimal.

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, compact sentence that states the action, the resource, and the ownership scope with no filler. Every word earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination behavior, but with no output schema and simple semantics, the provided description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the input schema imposes no burden on the description. The description correctly implies that the tool takes no arguments and simply returns the user's saved systems, which is sufficient at the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 and resource: 'List the user's saved scoring systems.' It clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling tools like systems_show, systems_create, and systems_update by emphasizing the 'saved' collection and the user's ownership.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies a list-all-saved-systems use case, it does not mention that systems_show is for a single system or that creating/updating systems are the mutation counterparts, leaving selection largely to the agent's inference.

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