list_signal_aspects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important traits: 'No side effects' (read-only), return format 'Returns {"aspects": [...]}', the real subset of the mast, case-sensitivity of aspects, and error behavior for non-standard names.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. It includes parameter details and key behavioral notes in a structured format (Args, notes) without fluff. Every sentence provides value.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers the input semantics, return format, case-sensitivity, exclusions, and side-effect safety. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that 'name' is a 'Mast name (system name or userName) or unambiguous fragment' and is 'Case-insensitive'. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 'List valid aspect names for one mast' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting its purpose 'to pick an exact spelling before set_signal' and excluding 'unlit'/'off' (use signal_off).

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'to pick an exact spelling before set_signal'. Also provides an alternative: 'Excludes "unlit"/"off" (use signal_off)'. This gives clear usage context and contrasts with sibling tools.

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