list_generation_optionsLists only generator families implemented by the current deterministic core.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| facts | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| confidence | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate those. It adds the useful scoping point that the list is limited to the current deterministic core, but it does not clarify how the optional intent affects 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 that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
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 the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it leaves the meaning of the sole parameter undocumented, which is a noticeable gap for a tool whose schema descriptions cover 0%.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the optional 'intent' parameter or how CONNECT/REPAIR/CREATE affect the returned generator families. The description must compensate for the absent schema documentation but does not.
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 'Lists' and a clear resource: 'generator families implemented by the current deterministic core.' It is unambiguous about scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling tools.
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 'Lists only...' implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs generator families available in the current deterministic core, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct capability: exact product retrieval, search, pairwise compatibility, fit guidance, offer lookup, generation-family listing, and problem resolution. The closest pair (get_compatibility and get_fit_guidance) is separated by interface matching vs. manufacturing compensation and physical-test warnings.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-object form: get_*, list_*, search_*, resolve_*. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague generic verbs.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a parts decision-support server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers core lookup, search, compatibility, fit, offer, generation-option, and problem-resolution workflows well. The only minor gap is that generation options are listed but not expanded into detailed generation variants, so an agent may need to work around that via resolve_problem.