List Handles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes a listing operation, which is read-only by nature, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side effects, or resource requirements. The description does not address potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or server load implications.

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, succinct sentence that immediately communicates the purpose. There is no extraneous information; every word is meaningful. It front-loads the verb 'List' and specifies the objects being listed. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It tells what is returned ('handles and non-secret metadata') but omits details like whether the list is sorted, paginated, or limited. For a tool with zero complexity, a score of 3 acknowledges that it conveys the core functionality but lacks supplementary context that might aid an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. With 0 parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not detract but also does not need to compensate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('known local secret handles and non-secret metadata'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as 'sgw_describe_handle' which focuses on a single handle, and 'sgw_execute_request' which uses handles. The specificity of 'local secret handles' prevents confusion with global or non-secret handles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring prior knowledge of a handle, or indicate that this tool is appropriate for getting an overview before drilling down with 'sgw_describe_handle'. The lack of usage context means the agent must infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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