get_equipment_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behaviors: aggregation, sorting by quantity descending, and separate grouping of accessories. However, it does not explain what 'include_old' does, whether the operation is read-only, or how the result is structured beyond the rollup concept. The description is accurate but only partially transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives sorting and accessory details, each sentence adding distinct value. This is an appropriately sized, well-structured description.

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?

Although an output schema exists, so return-value detail is unneeded, the description still leaves the include_old parameter unexplained and provides no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools. For a one-parameter tool this is only a moderate gap, but it prevents the definition from being fully self-sufficient. A sentence about include_old and the intended use case would make it complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter, include_old. The parameter name hints at including older items, but the description provides no elaboration on what 'old' means or how the default false affects results. The parameter's self-evident name earns a slight credit, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states a clear purpose: a 'rental-style rollup' of fixture type, quantity, and total wattage, which identifies the resource and action. It adds distinctive details like sorting by quantity and splitting out accessories, which helps differentiate it from siblings even without naming them. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the related fixture tools like get_fixture_counts or get_fixture_summary, so a small clarity gap remains.

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 phrase 'rental-style rollup' implies this tool is for a specific aggregated view, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus the many sibling fixture tools. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent must infer usage context from the title alone, which is insufficient.

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