list_parts

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

With no annotations, the description fully reveals behavior: it lists all parts and colors, and provides detailed attributes (sizes in studs, height in plates, tile/slope/baseplate specifics). No contradictions.

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 relatively concise but packs many details into a dense paragraph. It is front-loaded but could be broken into clearer sections for readability.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides rich context (only placeable pieces, z=0 constraint for baseplates) that is essential for correct tool usage.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of sizes, colors, and part-specific details.

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 the tool lists every part and color in the catalog, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'parts in catalog'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with builds.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to get part info before placing), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The context of sibling tools being build-related helps, but lacks explicit guidance.

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