list_tentacles

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool never makes an HTTP call, never raises, returns an instant static response, and accepts ctx only for interface consistency but never reads it. This is exemplary transparency for a stub.

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 tightly structured: it front-loads the stub nature, then the behavioral guarantees, then the routing alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the ADR reference adds useful context without bloat.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: why the tool exists, what it returns conceptually, that it is not a failure, and which sibling to use for real functionality. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema is empty and description coverage is complete. The description goes further by clarifying that the optional ctx parameter is accepted but ignored, which prevents an agent from assuming it has functional meaning. For a zero-parameter tool, this is more than the schema alone provides.

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 this is a stub for tentacle enumeration that returns a static explanation rather than an actual list, and it explicitly names the underlying gap ('no JSON API in OctoBot'). It also distinguishes itself from get_tentacle_config, making the tool's purpose and non-purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: use get_tentacle_config(tentacle) if you already know the tentacle's class name. This directly tells the agent how to route between sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity.

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