clm_list_operations

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 useful behavioral context: it returns operation names/summaries rather than schemas, supports exact tag and case-insensitive substring filtering, and routes full schema retrieval to clm_describe_operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the filters are compactly specified, and the next step is actionable. 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?

This is a simple optional-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile. The description tells the agent what the tool returns, how to filter, and what to do afterward, so it is complete for selection and 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 0%, and the description compensates for tag and search with precise semantics: exact tag match and case-insensitive substring on name/summary. Limit is not described, but its name and default value make its purpose reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List CLM API operations reachable via clm_invoke.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling describe/invoke tools and entity-specific listers. The filter details and next-step guidance reinforce its discovery role.

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 frames the workflow: list operations, then 'Use clm_describe_operation on a result to get its full input schema before calling clm_invoke.' This gives when to use the tool and the recommended follow-up, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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