icf_list_instruments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read-only list operation returning 'Table of available instruments with key details', implying no side effects. It could explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the verb 'list' sufficiently indicates safety.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Despite having only 1 optional parameter and simple behavior, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return value. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not needed. The description is complete for this tool's 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?

The schema only provides type and default for 'domain'. The description adds valuable context: example values ('Mental Health', 'Rheumatology', etc.) and explains that leaving it empty returns all instruments, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'standardized assessment instruments', and provides specific examples (GAD-7, PHQ-9, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like icf_instrument_details or icf_suggest_instruments.

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 explains when to use the tool (list all instruments or filter by domain) but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives like icf_instrument_details for detailed info on a specific instrument.

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