pid_list_symbols

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only action and avoids any destructive implication, but it does not disclose behavior like whether the category parameter filters results, whether all available items are always returned, or whether the listing is hierarchical. The scope (ISA 5.1 & CTO P&ID) is a useful addition, but the behavioral detail is thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it is so brief that it misses useful parameter and usage context; those omissions are better penalized under other dimensions.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only listing tool and an output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. However, the single optional parameter is left semantically unexplained and no usage guidance is given. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the optional `category` parameter does. The word 'categories' in the description and the parameter name give a weak hint that it may filter by category, but valid values, the effect of null/default, and whether it is a filter are never stated.

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'), names the exact resource ('available ISA 5.1 & CTO P&ID categories and symbols'), and clearly differentiates this from the pid_insert_* and pid_route_pipe siblings by framing it as a listing/exploration tool rather than a drawing-creation tool.

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 phrase 'available' implies this should be used to discover what symbols/categories exist, likely before inserting P&ID objects, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or names a sibling. Usage is reasonably inferable but not stated.

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