art.production.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List all production job IDs' without mentioning pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication, or whether it's a read-only operation. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with zero annotations.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It's highly concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the action and result (production job IDs). It could mention whether all IDs are returned at once or paginated, but given the tool's simplicity, the current description is mostly complete. The lack of any usage context or limitation notes is a minor gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per the calibration rule, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 action and resource: 'List all production job IDs.' It's specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like art.production.status or art.production.attempts, which could also return lists of jobs. The lacking differentiation prevents 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when an agent should choose it over other production-related tools. There's no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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