bni_list_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Lists' but does not explicitly state safety, output structure, pagination, or any caveats. It adds some context but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, making it highly scannable and economical.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. It tells the agent what will be returned (country codes and their known sites). Minor details like response format or error behavior are not addressed but are not critical for this simple list tool.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty schema (100% coverage), the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and correctly omits them.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource: every registered country code and its associated sites. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like bni_list_regions and bni_list_chapters, which target different resources.

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 clearly states the context: use this tool to obtain all registered country codes and their sites. While it doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, the specificity of the resource makes the usage obvious for agents needing country-level data.

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