list_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool lists formats (a read-only, non-destructive operation) with no side effects. It does not detail return format or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no mutations), this is adequate. A high score is justified as there are no hidden behaviors.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet fully informative.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: it lists readable/writable formats and names examples. No additional details are required for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). The baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 identifies the resource as 'machine-embroidery file formats Ink/Stitch can read and write', with concrete examples (dst, pes, jef, exp, vp3). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_embroidery, export_embroidery, and convert_machine_format, which involve file operations rather than listing.

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 explicitly states the tool lists readable and writable formats, providing clear context for use. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the sibling names (e.g., convert_machine_format) imply that this tool is for informational queries, not conversion. A brief 'when not to use' could elevate the score, but current guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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