list_systems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully characterizes the result as a 'compact overview' and lists the fields returned, but says nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, or pagination behavior beyond naming the parameters.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return nature, then the sibling alternative, then pagination. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and how to drill into a single record. Nothing about response shape or limits is missing, though the absence of annotations leaves behavioral guarantees implicit.

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 the schema already documents limit and offset, including the default of 20 and offset semantics. The description adds only a restatement that pagination is supported, which is minimal value over the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List data systems registered in Cyberday') and immediately differentiates itself from 'get_system' by contrasting compact overview vs. full details. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search_systems or systems_summary without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use 'get_system' with a specific ID for full detail, giving a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that condition. It does not address when to prefer 'search_systems' or 'systems_summary', so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete across the sibling set.

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