List clauses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields, the sort order, the optional category narrowing, and the relationship to contract_assemble's order. It does not mention pagination, limits, or access requirements, but for a simple list operation the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the key facts: output fields, sort order, filtering option, and the sibling to use instead. No redundant wording exists.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names return fields, ordering, the filter parameter, and the alternative search tool. Slight gaps remain around whether all clauses are returned by default and potential pagination, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 only 'category' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds the essential meaning 'Narrow with category', which tells the agent it is an optional filter. However, it does not specify whether matching is exact, how categories are formatted, or where valid values come from, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 the library as id, title, category, tags and variables'), defines the output fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from clause_search by noting that search is for words. This fully separates it from siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for listing the library in contract order, can be narrowed by category, and should be abandoned in favor of clause_search when searching for words. It names the alternative explicitly and the condition that selects it.

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