List tribes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows this is read-only; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns both public and private tribes the user belongs to, supports query search, and explains the uuid-return behavior. It does not describe pagination behavior in detail, but the schema already covers page/limit. Not contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: scope, then the purpose, then parameter usage, then downstream integration. Every sentence earns its place and there is no dead weight.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual facts: scope, special behavior (private tribes), parameter intent, and integration with a sibling tool. Nothing necessary for invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does add meaning by explaining what 'query' is useful for ('search by name or description') and implies the pagination params, but it does not add much beyond the schema.

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 action ('List tribes on Tribeunal') and delineates the scope ('every public tribe plus the private tribes you own or belong to'). It also distinguishes itself from a potential sibling by noting there is no separate 'my tribes' tool, and it ties the tool's output to a concrete downstream use (pass a uuid to tribeunal_invite_jurors).

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 explains when to use this tool: to find your own tribes and to resolve a tribe name to its uuid. It also points to an alternative action ('there is no separate my tribes tool') and tells the agent what to do with the returned uuid, which is clear usage guidance.

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