Reticle Red laser design tools

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of what comes back: matching jobs, the tool for each, output formats, published credit cost, and a link. It omits any statement about result ranking or how the limit behaves, but that is a minor gap against the covered safety profile.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scopes it with in-line parenthetical examples, followed by a return-value clause. The example list is slightly long, but each example clarifies the query intent, so only marginal trimming is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (tool, output formats, credit cost, link), which is what the agent actually needs to act on results. It leaves the relationship to list_laser_jobs unaddressed and says nothing about ordering or empty-result behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with their own constraints. The description restates the query semantics ('what the user wants to make') and adds nothing about the limit or result-count behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Reticle Red's job index') plus the intent-scoped basis of the search, so the agent knows this is a semantic/intent lookup rather than a plain enumeration. It does not name or contrast with the sibling list_laser_jobs, so the agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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?

Clear usage context: use it when the user describes what they want to make, with four concrete example queries ('photo on wood', 'challenge coin'). No exclusions or explicit alternative are given, so the agent gets clear when-to-use but no guidance on when list_laser_jobs is the better choice.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are grouped and carry tool, output formats and published credit cost per job, which is meaningful since there is no output schema — but it says nothing about pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are packed efficiently. The mid-sentence "grouped, with the tool..." construction is slightly lumpy but not wasteful.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with safety covered by annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is listed, which index, and what each entry contains. Missing only pagination/result-size expectations and sibling routing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify, and schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (every job in Reticle Red's public job index), plus the fields returned. It is clearly an enumeration tool, but it never names or differentiates itself from the sibling find_laser_job, leaving the list-vs-find split implicit.

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?

"List every job" implies a browse-enumeration use case versus the targeted find_laser_job, so the usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or alternative named, which is a real gap given a sibling exists.

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