constraint_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds context by defining constraints via controller type. It also discloses pagination behavior, which is useful beyond the raw schema. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence serves a purpose. The bilingual format is efficient and does not introduce redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 operation, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, how constraints are identified, and that pagination is supported. It could mention the default object selection behavior or return structure, but the schema already documents objects, and the annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain, so not a 5.

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 limit, offset, and objects are already well documented. The description mentions pagination and object scope but does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list'), the resource ('constraints on an object'), and clarifies what counts as a constraint ('tracks whose controller is a *constraint'). It also names the output scope ('their targets'), making it distinguishable from sibling constraint manipulation tools.

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 context: this is a read-only, paginated listing operation on an object's constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the read-only indicator and the resource scope make the intended use reasonably clear.

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