List XYZ Grid Options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only hint is the HTTP method 'GET', which suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether there are side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on empty results. This is minimal transparency.

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 entire description is a single sentence that directly states the function and optional filter. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint is concise and informative, adding value without bloat.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its core purpose. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., a list of string labels) or any edge cases like filtering behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated slightly on the return format or usage context, but it remains adequate for a basic 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'option' with its description 'Filter axis label by prefix/suffix.' The tool description merely repeats this concept ('optionally filtered by prefix') without adding new meaning or examples. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds no increment.

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 'XYZ grid axis options', making the primary function obvious. It also mentions the optional filter, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling 'list_*' tools, relying on the name for distinction, which is why it doesn't earn a 5.

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 usage by mentioning 'optionally filtered by prefix', giving a condition for use. But it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over other list tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative tools. The context signals show many similar list tools, and the description does not address selection.

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