list_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful domain context (size measured in studs along x/z and height in plates) for a low-risk read tool, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or what a category match returns beyond the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary listing behavior before the search alternative, and the size-unit clarification is genuinely useful. Minor density but no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and both zero-required parameters are addressed. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly; only ordering/pagination behavior is left unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably: it spells out the valid category values (brick, plate, tile, slope, round, misc) and explains that search matches words in the part title, with an example. It could more explicitly tie 'category' to the curated set, but the mapping is clear.

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?

States a specific verb (list/search) and resource (curated parts / LDraw library), enumerates the categories covered, and clearly names the two modes so it is distinguishable from list_models and list_colors.

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 when each mode applies: bare listing of curated categories vs. searching the whole library by title words, with a concrete example ('window 1 x 2'). It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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