List 4.2BSD system calls

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output includes number, name, and notes, and that filtering is by substring. However, it does not mention output format, case sensitivity, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps for a simple listing 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes only necessary information. No waste or 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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed and the optional filtering. It does not cover alternatives or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 description's 'filter by name substring' essentially mirrors the schema's parameter description ('Only show syscalls whose name contains this substring'). With schema description coverage at 100%, the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 the 4.2BSD syscall table with number, name, and notes, and optionally filters by name substring. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_syscall, but the action and resource are specific enough.

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 implies usage for listing syscalls and mentions an optional filter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_syscall or search_all. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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