list_kits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('list') and specifies the workspace scope and optional filter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, non-destructive, or describe any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add the optional filter. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the operation. It implicitly indicates that the tool returns a list of kit objects, but does not explicitly confirm the return type or mention pagination. Overall, it is adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by repeating the parameter's purpose and enum values. It does not provide additional context like default behavior or the meaning of each status.

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's purpose: listing all brand kits in the workspace, with optional filtering by status. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('brand kits'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_kit or create_kit by indicating a batch retrieval operation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to list kits, optionally filtered) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or reference alternatives like list_blocks or get_kit. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide given the sibling tool names.

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