Get fingerprint options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the constraint that both 'system' and 'gpu_vendor' are required for type=webgl, but it does not describe the output format or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The conditional note is concise and directly relevant.

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 read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description provides the core purpose and the main constraint (webgl). It does not describe the return structure, but the simple 'list' nature implies an array of values. Overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 67% (system and gpu_vendor have descriptions). The description reinforces the webgl dependency that is already present in the schema, and it adds minimal meaning for 'type' by indicating it selects the fingerprint field. It adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'selectable values for a fingerprint field'. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling 'generate_random_fingerprint' by noting its use for 'manual fingerprint configuration'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for manual fingerprint configuration') and a specific conditional instruction for type=webgl. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficient.

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