spoolman_list_vendors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List and search') and mentions pagination behavior, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it disclose any authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some behavioral context but is not thorough.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by relevant capabilities. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity of a list/search tool and a fully self-describing schema, the description covers the essential functionality (filtering, pagination). It does not mention the return shape, but for a simple list tool with no output schema, this is not a critical gap. The absence of annotations and output schema is partially compensated by the clear schema and the nature of the operation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters (name, sort, limit, offset). The description summarizes filtering by name and pagination, which adds marginal value but does not go beyond what the schema already says. According to the baseline rule, this scores a 3.

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's action ('List and search vendors') and the resource (vendors in Spoolman). It is distinct from sibling tools like spoolman_get_vendor (single vendor) and spoolman_list_filaments (different resource). The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is used for listing/searching vendors and mentions filtering and pagination, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over spoolman_get_vendor or provide alternatives/exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear when-to-use directive.

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