List Samplers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions the GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, and indicates it returns sampler names and options. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive, nor describe any limitations (e.g., no filters). For a simple list tool, the behavior is largely self-evident, so the description provides adequate but minimal disclosure.

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: one sentence with a parenthetical endpoint and a usage tip. Every part contributes value, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and includes actionable guidance.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states what it lists (samplers and options), where it comes from (endpoint), and how to use the results (for sampler_name). A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the structure of 'options,' but that's not critical for a list tool.

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?

Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds usable context by explaining that the output (sampler names) should be used for the 'sampler_name' parameter elsewhere. This enhances understanding of the tool's purpose beyond 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 tool lists available samplers and their options, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('samplers'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on samplers, not schedulers, checkpoints, etc. The inclusion of the endpoint adds 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 implies when to use it: when you need sampler names for the sampler_name parameter. It explicitly instructs to 'Use the returned names for sampler_name,' which is practical guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not or mention of alternatives, but given its narrow purpose, this is adequate.

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