core_list

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

No annotations are provided, but the verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation. The description adds no unnecessary safety warnings but clarifies the scope (installed cores) and provides examples. This is sufficient for a simple listing operation.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes two useful examples. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is fully self-contained. It states what the tool does and gives sample output values, which is enough for an agent to invoke it without confusion. No output schema is present, but the description compensates adequately.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Examples clarify the expected output format.

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 'installed Arduino cores (platform packages)', with concrete examples (e.g., arduino:avr, arduino:mbed_portenta). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like core_install or board_list.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and the action 'list installed cores', but an agent is not directly guided to choose core_list over similar tools like board_list.

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