list_units

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description 'Fetch a list of units' adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination defaults or filtering behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, so the score is acceptable but not enhanced.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Fetch' and the resource 'units', making it instantly scannable. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the tool's scope (e.g., all units vs. filtered) or how it differs from search_units. The absence of an output schema is not compensated by the description, leaving some ambiguity about return structure.

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?

All parameters (limit and offset) are fully described in the input schema, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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 'Fetch a list of units' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's primary purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_units, which also deals with units. The title 'List Units' aligns with the description, but no distinguishing details are provided.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_units or get_unit. The description implies a general listing operation but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between multiple unit-related tools.

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