list-rim-diameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond that: the unit (inches), the 'all' scope, and the optional filters. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, or edge cases (e.g., no results), but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second gives a directed usage hint. Very concise.

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 no output schema, the description covers the necessary elements: what it lists (rim diameters in inches), optional filters, and usage context. It doesn't elaborate on return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling relationships, this is sufficient.

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 100%, and both parameters are described in detail (region codes, bolt pattern format). The description confirms they are optional filters but does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool lists all rim diameters in inches, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-rim-widths and list-rim-bolt-patterns by naming the specific resource (rim diameters) and unit (inches). It also frames the use case around discovering valid values for search-by-rim, which reinforces its unique purpose.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to discover valid rim_diameter values before calling search-by-rim, providing a concrete use case and relationship to a downstream tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like list-rim-widths, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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