list_grids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the shape of the result (built-in grids plus load-type status), but says nothing about ordering, permissions, or caching. For a simple zero-arg read-only enumeration the gaps are minor, but the disclosure is still thin.

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, front-loaded with what is listed and immediately followed by the alternative for custom grids. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover the return content, and it does specify the two pieces of information returned. It could say more about how the grid list is structured or empty-state behavior, but for a zero-argument enumeration it is nearly 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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the absence of a parameter-syntax discussion is appropriate rather than a gap.

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 ('List the built-in benchmark grids') plus the returned attribute (whether their load types are known), and it distinguishes itself from load_grid, which handles custom pandapower files. An agent can tell what this returns without opening a schema.

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 second sentence routes the agent to load_grid for custom .json/.xlsx grids, giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the boundary between built-in and custom grids is unambiguous.

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