clm_list_enums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the enums are undocumented integer values, real member names are unknown, and placeholder names are interchangeable with integer values. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the supporting detail about placeholder names is confined to a short second paragraph. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains why the enums exist, how they are represented, and how the returned values are used by other tools. 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage of that, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description appropriately focuses on the output's meaning instead.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('List CLM domain enums and their known integer values'), which immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are enum-listing utilities.

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 explains that enum values are shared across tools and that tools accept either the integer value or the placeholder name interchangeably. This gives practical usage context for when an agent would want this information, though it does not explicitly say 'call this before using tools that accept enum parameters' or mention exclusions.

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