List registry fields

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/destructive safety; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: merged/superseded rows are hidden by default, maturity semantics for stable vs candidate concepts, and cursor pagination with a return-shape listing. It could also mention auth requirements or rate limits, but those are not necessary for this read-only listing tool.

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 with purpose, then structured into USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and RETURNS. Every section earns its place, and the ARGS section is a compact summary rather than a full schema dump.

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?

With no output schema, the RETURNS field list is essential and present. The description also covers pagination, default behavior for superseded rows, when to use the tool, and how it relates to sibling tools; no significant calling context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds guidance beyond the schema by explaining why to prefer core/proven maturities and what include_superseded=false means semantically ('you never see two ids for one concept'). This is useful parameter-level context without needing to restate schema details.

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 a specific verb ('List') with an explicit resource ('the workspace's Field Registry') and defines what those concepts are. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is not for locating documents (talonic_search) or filtering by value (talonic_filter), so an agent can select it correctly.

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 USE WHEN block gives concrete triggers ('need to know WHAT data exists... need the exact field id for talonic_get_field / talonic_field_values') and the NOT FOR block names the sibling alternatives. This is explicit routing guidance rather than implied usage.

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