list_ecosystem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the returned fields are disclosed, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, pagination, or output size. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a useful usage hint. No redundant or filler wording.

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 zero-parameter exploration tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it lists and its intended use. It could mention pagination or format, but 'all known' and the listed fields give enough context for a correct call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant meaning by enumerating what the result will contain (addresses, categories, descriptions), which is the main semantic content an agent needs.

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') and resource ('all known Dysnomia ecosystem contracts'), and specifies the returned fields: addresses, categories, and descriptions. The phrase 'Good starting point for exploration' helps distinguish it from more targeted sibling tools like get_contract_state or search_events.

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 implies the tool is for initial exploration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'good starting point' line gives context but leaves the decision to the agent's inference.

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