list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool lists all entries and returns specific fields (id, name, url, description). It does not mention any limitations, sorting, or other behavioral details, but for a simple list operation with no parameters, this is adequate. The transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two short sentences. The first defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none. According to guidelines, baseline is 3, which is appropriate as there is no parameter information to enhance.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all saved llms.txt entries', including the fields returned (id, name, url, description). It distinguishes from siblings like add, del, edit, and view_content, which are for individual operations, by focusing on listing all entries.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks what's available, or to look up an id for other tools.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. However, the guidance is precise and helpful.

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