list_feature_sets

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotations already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds useful context beyond that: it lists only 'accessible' sets and notes that results include both custom sets and shared templates. It also mentions the optional filter behavior. This is appropriate context for a simple read-only 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by filtering guidance and a concrete downstream use case. Every sentence earns its place; no filler 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, no required parameters, and an output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what it lists, how to filter, and how the result connects to analyze_quantitative. The output schema handles return-value details.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional parameter with the description 'Filter: 'conditioning' or 'target'. Omit for all.' The tool description repeats this filter semantics without adding new meaning, examples, or edge-case guidance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('feature sets'), and differentiates from the similar sibling tool list_feature_set_templates by noting it returns custom sets plus shared templates. This is unambiguous and immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to find conditioning_set_id values for analyze_quantitative.' It also explains how to filter by set_type. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus list_feature_set_templates, but the sibling name and the 'custom sets plus shared templates' phrasing make the intended context clear.

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