List Wildcards

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for conveying behavior. It adds the endpoint reference and the wildcard syntax detail, which partially covers this. However, it doesn't explain what the returned list contains (filenames? full paths?), whether ordering is guaranteed, whether hidden files are included, or what happens if no wildcards exist (empty list?). For a zero-param tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich context.

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?

One clean sentence with the endpoint bonus in parentheses. Every word earns its place. Zero fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose before the parenthetical.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what it lists and the syntax it relates to. However, it's missing useful context like whether the listing is recursive, how results are sorted, whether it's a static list or filesystem-scanned, and typical use cases. Higher perceived completeness would need mention of return shape or usage context.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there's nothing more to explain. The description correctly focuses on the tool's side effect (listing) rather than inventing parameter documentation. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is justified; no deduction here.

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?

Specific verb ('List') + resource ('wildcard files') + concrete syntax detail ('<wildcard:name>') clearly state what the tool does. Somewhat generic without deeper context on what 'wildcards' are, but the endpoint reference reinforces the purpose. Stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like sdnext_list_scripts or sdnext_list_tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. The endpoint hint ('(GET /sdapi/v1/wildcards)') implicitly signals it's for fetching wildcard files, but there's no mention of scenarios where this list would be needed (e.g., for prompt construction) or exclusions (e.g., 'use this when building a prompt with wildcard syntax'). No alternatives are named.

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