bank_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 disclosing behavior. It mentions the tool lists all banks but adds a vague 'capped' constraint without specifying the cap size or consequences. There is no mention of side effects, but a list operation is inherently read-only, so the lack of explicit disclosure is not critical. Still, the ambiguity around 'capped' could be a behavioral surprise.

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, short sentence that conveys the essential action and scope without excess. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately clarifies the resource and a limiting factor (cap). No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no annotations, no output schema), yet the description omits important context: what does 'capped' mean? What is the cap? Are results ordered? Does it return full bank objects or summaries? For a listing tool, this information would help the agent set expectations. While the basic purpose is clear, the lack of any detail about the response format or cap size leaves the agent uncertain about invocation outcomes.

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 there is no parameter documentation needed. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on params Interests. The phrase 'every bank' clarifies the scope, and 'capped' hints at a limit, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool lists every bank in the project, with a specific resource (bank) and action (list). The parenthetical '(capped)' adds a specific constraint, distinguishing this from a simple enumeration. Though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like bank_info, the name and phrasing make 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bank_info or bank_list_events. The description is a bare statement of function with no context about use cases or exclusions. For a simple list tool, the lack of explicit usage direction leaves the agent without cues on when this is the right choice.

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