crispasr_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the server must be running but does not state that this is a read-only network call, what happens if the server is unreachable, or whether any side effects exist. The minimal wording offers little beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and immediately states the core action and scope.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main outcome but omits details like return format, error behavior, or prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations, it is adequate but minimal; an agent might need to infer how to interpret the result.

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 for the parameter meaning. It does not mention server_url at all, nor explain how it relates to the server or how to format it. While the schema provides a default, the description adds no semantic value to the parameter.

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 lists available backends from a running CrispASR server, naming the specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like crispasr_list_models, though it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction, so it misses a perfect 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 versus alternatives like crispasr_list_models or crispasr_health. There are no exclusion criteria or context hints about selecting this tool over siblings. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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