list_experts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by naming the two file categories that get listed, but says nothing about whether the listing is recursive, whether full paths or bare filenames come back, or how it behaves when no terminal is active.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource scope and the two file types are packed into it without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations supplying the safety profile, most of what an agent needs is present. However, no output schema exists, so the description should have indicated the return shape (bare filenames vs. full paths, recursion depth) and the failure mode when no terminal is active.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus concrete resources ('.mq5 sources and .ex5 binaries') scoped to the 'active terminal Experts folder'. This disambiguates 'experts' as Expert Advisor files, clearly distinct from siblings like list_profiles, list_symbols or list_snapshots. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Under the active terminal Experts folder' implicitly signals that an active terminal must be selected first (via use_terminal/terminal_status), but this prerequisite is never stated outright and there are no when-not conditions or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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