List instructions

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

The description discloses that results are sorted by opcode and includes the can_trap field, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also references instruction_get for trap conditions, managing expectations.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous text.

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 description adequately covers the tool's functionality, return format (lightweight rows, sorted, includes can_trap), and relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema, it provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each filter, giving an example for prefix, and noting the return includes can_trap, thus providing meaningful context beyond schema field names.

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 'Enumerate' with the resource 'WebAssembly instructions' and lists all optional filters, clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes from the sibling 'instruction_get' by noting that tool provides full detail.

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 states the tool returns lightweight rows and suggests following up with instruction_get for full detail, providing clear usage guidance. However, it could explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like instruction_search.

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