td_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'List child ops' and does not mention read-only nature, return format, depth behavior, or any side effects. The schema defaults hint at behavior but are not described.

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, densely packed sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and the family scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It omits explanation of how 'depth', 'limit', 'parent', and 'pattern' affect the results, leaving the agent to infer from defaults or schema names. This is inadequate for complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'family' parameter by listing valid values (TOP/CHOP/DAT/SOP/COMP), but does not explain 'depth', 'limit', 'parent', or 'pattern'. This partial compensation is insufficient for a tool with five parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List child ops') and specifies the resource scope (family: TOP/CHOP/DAT/SOP/COMP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_read_chop or td_find_channels, 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 usage through its clear verb 'List' and the family parameter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like td_get or td_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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