list_notations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the base-vs-per-schema split and the meaningful empty-base-set behavior. It does not mention error behavior if the BREX cannot be found, but the read-only listing intent is clear.

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 front-loaded and tightly written: it states the core listing behavior first, then the context parameter effect, then the empty-set caveat. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned conceptually (base set plus per-schema additions/exclusions, and empty base set behavior). It does not fully specify the output structure, but it is sufficient for correct 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining that "context" computes the effective set for one schema, but otherwise does not go beyond the structured parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: listing the illustration/multimedia notations a BREX allows, split into base set and per-schema additions/exclusions. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like explain_brex and check_against_brex by focusing on the allowed notation set.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to pass "context" to get the effective set for a specific schema, and explains that an empty base set means the BREX does not restrict notations. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over explain_brex or check_against_brex.

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