list_fonts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, does not mention any side effects, caching, or rate limits. It adds the specific fields returned, which is helpful, but overall transparency is minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word provides value. There is no wasted text.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (name, scale limits, description). The purpose is fully covered, and the agent can correctly use the tool without additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per rules the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, but it correctly implies no inputs are needed. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('embroidery lettering fonts'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_lettering by noting these fonts are available for that tool. The fields returned (name, scale limits, description) are listed, eliminating ambiguity.

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 before generate_lettering by stating the fonts are 'available to generate_lettering'. This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to other siblings. For a simple list tool, this is clear enough.

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