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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' discloses that it is a read-only, informational operation, but it does not describe the return format, whether the list is exhaustive, or if any special prerequisites exist. It is adequate but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states what is listed and mentions the added guidance. There is no redundant or vague wording; it is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simple, parameterless reference tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies what is listed (presets, output formats, conversion options) and that guidance is included. It does not explicitly describe the output structure, but that is largely implied by the word 'List'.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details; it only describes the tool's output, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('Brode presets, output formats and common conversion options'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (brode_convert, brode_download, brode_job_status). It states exactly what the tool provides, making its 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?

The phrase 'with guidance for choosing' gives clear context that the tool helps users select presets/formats/options, implying it should be used before a conversion task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases, but the usage context is clear enough.

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