get_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and summarizes the return structure (id, name, official/community flag, platforms). This gives the agent a clear expectation of behavior without side effects or hidden constraints. It could add notes about pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the return details and a direct use-case pointer. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent intake.

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 endpoint with no parameters, this description is complete. It states the purpose, the authentication requirement, the return fields, and a concrete use case. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return types, but it already does sufficiently. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does elaborate on the output fields, which adds value beyond what a parameter schema would provide. Since the schema is empty, this is effectively the only semantic content, and it's clear and helpful.

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 'List all products on ALBS,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists the fields returned (id, name, official/community flag, platforms), making its purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, the specificity of 'products' and its unique output fields effectively distinguish it from the other get_* 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 description provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Use this to pick the target product when creating a release plan with create_release_plan.' This tells the agent when to call this tool and links it to a specific sibling, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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