list_detectors

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

Description accurately portrays a read-only list operation, but annotations contain destructiveHint=true which contradicts this. The description does not address the contradiction or provide additional behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and results. No extraneous information.

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?

Completely describes what the tool returns and its use case. No output schema needed for such a simple list.

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?

No parameters in schema; description confirms 'Takes no arguments.' This is sufficient given 0 parameters and 100% 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 clearly states the tool lists all compliance risk detectors with specific fields (id, name, description, related_laws). It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_directory and get_law_reference.

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?

Explicitly says use it to explain what klaws checks for or to see risks before scanning. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but implied differentiation from sibling tools.

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