list_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the return fields (concept_id, type, title, description, tags, timestamp) and the exclusion of reserved files (index.md, log.md). However, it does not clarify recursion behavior, pagination, or sorting, which are relevant for a 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return fields and exclusion behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no verbosity or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers purpose, return fields, and an important exclusion. It is slightly incomplete regarding recursion/pagination behavior, but for a simple list tool with a single parameter, it is largely adequate.

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% and the schema already fully explains the 'path' parameter ('Subdirectory to list, relative to the bundle root. Leave empty to list the entire bundle.'). The description adds no further parameter-level semantics beyond restating the subdirectory concept, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all concepts in the bundle') and clearly scopes behavior to subdirectories. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_concept (single) and search_concepts (filtered), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate concepts) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names like search_concepts are not referenced, so the agent must infer the distinction. No guidance is given for when NOT to use this tool.

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