list_data_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'List all available data formats', with no information about whether it is a read-only operation, pagination, authentication requirements, or response format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or performance implications.

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 at 4 words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word is necessary and sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'data formats' are or what the output contains (e.g., identifiers, names, details). Relying on the output schema to fill this gap is acceptable but leaves the description incomplete on its own.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed and the tool returns all formats. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adds value by confirming the scope ('all'), which aligns with the empty schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'data formats', making the purpose unambiguous. It is concise and differentiates from sibling tools that list other resources like tables or projects. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'data format', leaving a slight gap in specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's purpose is self-explanatory as a simple list, but the absence of any usage hints lowers the score.

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