List Kits

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it is FREE, it never raises a protocol error but returns an error object, and retrying after correction is always safe. It also documents the exact return object structure.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by terse, high-value additions (FREE, return format, alternative tool, error behavior). Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description covers all necessary context: the exact return shape, error handling, idempotency/retry safety, and how it relates to the premium sibling tool. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, and the description is sufficient even without it.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments,' which is redundant with the empty schema but adds clarity by explicitly stating that there are no inputs to provide.

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 'the 12 themed kits with pricing and member products' — a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_full_kit by noting that a kit's slug is used with get_full_kit for deeper detail.

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 usage: call this tool to get an overview of all kits, then use get_full_kit for premium detail on a specific kit. It names the alternative explicitly ('Use a kit's slug with get_full_kit (premium)'), though it doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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