list_constellations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns 'honest unavailable status for missing/corrupt/unsupported data' and clarifies that membership is task scope rather than an ontology relation. This prevents misinterpretation of the data's meaning, which annotations do not convey.

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, dense paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes essential qualifiers without excessive verbosity. The structure is clear and every sentence contributes meaning, though the density could be slightly briefer for maximum readability.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, yet it still specifies key output fields (names, timestamps, member counts, etc.) and the honest status handling. It also clarifies the important semantic boundary ('task scope, not ontology relation'), which is essential for correct tool selection. The tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema mean the description is complete for an agent to call 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 fully describes both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value 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 clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (saved constellation metadata from this configured vault only). It specifies the exact fields returned and distinguishes its scope from broader ontology concepts by clarifying that saved membership is task scope, not an ontology relation. This differentiates it from siblings like list_concepts and get_constellation.

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 context by stating 'from this configured vault only,' which suggests it is scoped to a specific vault, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_constellation or list_concepts. The semantic caveat about task scope provides some context but not direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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