list_arc_diagram_dialects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing operation and explicitly names what is returned: 'supported dialects, their semantics and authoring constraints'. It does not discuss permissions or output format, but the 'List' verb makes side effects and mutation unlikely.

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 sentence with no wasted words: the action, resource, and content of the result are all front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is low complexity with no parameters and no output schema, and the description adequately names the result content. It could be slightly more complete by noting the read-only nature explicitly or positioning it against sibling tools, but as a simple listing operation it is largely 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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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, 'List', with a clear resource: 'supported arc-diagram visual dialects'. It also specifies what the list includes ('semantics and authoring constraints'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arc_diagram_contract, validate_arc_diagram_set, and create_arc_diagram_project.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list rather than being told.

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