reunion_list_saint_denis_quarters

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the return includes quarter name and source, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is simple, but more specific behavioral context (e.g., 'returns exactly 20 items', 'data is static') would improve transparency.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, context, and output 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it lists exactly 20 quarters, mentions administrative use, and tells what fields are returned. Could mention if the data is static or dynamic, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output includes quarter name and source, which is not in the schema. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and description meets that.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists the 20 official quarters of Saint-Denis, La Réunion, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'quarters'. It is distinct from sibling tools like reunion_list_communes or reunion_list_cantons due to the geographic specificity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Context implies it is for retrieving Saint-Denis quarters only, but no alternatives like nearby communes or broader lists are mentioned. Usage is implied but not directed.

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