statewave_list_subjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' describes pagination with limit/offset, and details the return structure (paginated array with per-subject counts and total count). This fully discloses behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and read-only nature, then adds usage guidance, and finally return details. Every sentence adds value with no 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 simple list tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains why to use it, how to use it (pagination), and what it returns (subject id, episode_count, memory_count, total count). Nothing missing given the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination with limit/offset but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It reinforces the intended use but does not enhance semantics.

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 it lists memory subjects with counts, and is read-only. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its role in discovering subject IDs for other tools like `repo:owner.name`. This makes the purpose precise and unique.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to discover which subject id to pass to the other tools' and gives context for chat clients. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable for agents. No alternatives are named, but the sibling list is separate.

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