List Header Exclusions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the concept of a 'policy cascade', the level-dependent scope, and the requirement for project context. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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?

Three short, focused sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, then level semantics, then the context requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with three parameters, one required, and conditional dependencies, the description covers the key preconditions and scoping. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't describe the return format, but the name and phrasing imply a list of headers, which is likely sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that 'response' needs specId and responseId and adds the broader project-context requirement, but it does not substantially go beyond what the input schema already states.

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 identifies the operation ('List the headers excluded') and the resource ('from the policy cascade'). It also distinguishes the two scopes ('response' vs 'project'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_header_policies or get_resolved_headers even though no sibling is named.

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 clear context for when to use each level, including the precondition that 'response' requires specId and responseId and that project level covers the whole project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is well implied.

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