interchange_get_supported_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enum-collapsing detail (Scenes = Assets|Actors) and alias mapping, which is genuinely useful behavior. It does not describe what happens when no translators are registered or output ordering, so it's above-baseline but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in the first sentence, then supporting engine reference, enum detail, and return shape. Slightly dense with C++ symbol references but every sentence adds technical value; no filler.

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-required-param, read-only enumeration tool, the definition covers purpose, accepted inputs and their semantics, and the return shape. No output schema exists, and the description helpfully states the return structure. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty results) to be fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by documenting the underlying enum semantics (Invalid/Assets/Actors/Scenes) and the alias resolution ('AssetsAndScene' mapped to Scenes), giving the agent confidence in accepted string values beyond the schema's terse enum list.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (file extensions supported by registered Interchange translators), and qualifies it by type. The reference to the underlying engine function anchors exactly what is enumerated. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like interchange_module_status or interchange_register_translator.

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?

Implied usage: the agent understands this enumerates formats for a translator type, and the default value is documented. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., how it relates to interchange_import_asset or interchange_can_translate_source_data) and no exclusions.

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