wb_supply_trbx_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what information is returned, whether pagination applies, or any security or side-effect considerations. The description merely names the resource.

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 very brief and easy to parse, but it is a fragment rather than a complete operational statement. The parenthetical Russian translation adds a little localization but does not compensate for the missing verb or behavioral context.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only one parameter, the lack of an output schema and annotations makes the description the only behavioral source. It does not specify that the tool returns the list of boxes, nor what shape that list takes, leaving too much for the agent to infer from the tool name.

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?

There is one required parameter, supply_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'of an FBS supply' loosely implies that supply_id identifies the supply whose boxes are listed, but the description does not explain the expected format, source, or validation of the ID. This is only minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Boxes (trbx)' of an FBS supply) and distinguishes it from trbx add/delete/sticker siblings, but it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action. The verb 'list' must be inferred from the tool name, so the description is clear but not fully explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as wb_supply_trbx_add, wb_supply_trbx_delete, wb_supply_trbx_stickers, or wb_supply_detail. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints are provided.

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