List intents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description is consistent with it. It adds the scope 'known intents' and the filter dimensions, which are useful but not extensive. No contradictions found.

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 no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only list tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the resource and the filter axes. But it lacks any indication of the output shape (no output schema exists) and doesn't clarify the scope of 'known intents' or when to prefer sibling tools. The absence of usage guidance is the main gap.

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 schema lists the two parameters with allowed enum values, but the description adds that they serve as optional filters. This is minimal compensation for the 0% schema description coverage; detailed meaning of each status (e.g., 'attestation_required') is left to the enum names. The description does help map parameters to their role.

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 ('List') and resource ('known intents'), clearly stating the operation. It also mentions optional filters by status and/or asset. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cims_status, so the reader must infer the distinction.

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 says what the tool does but not when to prefer it over alternatives. No mention of exclusions or specific use cases, such as using this tool to enumerate intents before checking a single one with cims_status. This leaves the agent without routing guidance.

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