list_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only (safe), nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent can infer that listing is non-destructive, but this is not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence of 10 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no fluff 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description provides the essential functionality. However, it lacks context about what 'chunking strategies' are and how they are registered. For a standalone tool, this might be insufficient without additional documentation.

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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It merely paraphrases 'optionally filtered by content type', which mirrors the schema property. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate with more detail (e.g., allowed values, behavior when null), but it does not.

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'), the resource ('registered chunking strategies'), and includes a filtering condition ('optionally filtered by content type'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like evaluate_chunking, preview_chunks, and recommend_config by focusing on listing rather than evaluation, preview, or recommendation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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