list-realms

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the core action. The input schema requires a 'random_string' dummy parameter, and the description does not explain this quirk, nor does it mention permissions, pagination, or response format. With no annotations, the description fails to fully carry the transparency burden.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete: it does not mention the dummy parameter requirement, expected response shape, or any permissions/scope details. Given there is no output schema, more context would be valuable for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear description ('Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools'). The tool description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable since the schema already explains the parameter.

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 'List all available realms' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('realms'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like create-realm, delete-realm, and get-realm-settings. It is direct and 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 usage (when you need to list realms) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools or any exclusions. It is adequate but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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