list_baselines

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description additionally reveals that it only parses local YAML files with no database or network access, guarantees pagination behavior (truncated always false, total exact), and explains how failed entries are represented with an 'error' field—far exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 longer than a simple two-liner but every sentence serves a purpose: scope enumeration, return envelope details, item structure, edge cases (error field), read-only behavior, and intended usage. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values and does so thoroughly: the envelope fields, item fields, error handling, and completeness guarantee (total exact, truncated false). It also provides the next-step usage context, making this description fully self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so semantics are minimal. The description explicitly says 'Takes no parameters' and the schema confirms an empty object, which fully clarifies the absence of inputs. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no further parameter description is needed.

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 explicitly states 'List all available compliance baselines' and enumerates specific built-in baselines plus user-imported YAML files, making the scope unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting this is the starting point for discovering baseline ids usable by get_baseline_rules and scan_target.

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?

Provides a clear directive: 'Start here to discover valid baseline ids for get_baseline_rules and scan_target.' This gives strong usage context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or directly contrast it with siblings like list_violations or list_drift_events.

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