core_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects (by using the verb 'List'), and provides concrete examples of output format. It does not describe edge cases or deeper behavior, but for a simple parameterless list tool, the description sufficiently discloses what the tool does.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource, with relevant examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description is complete: it names the tool's purpose, gives output examples, and implies the return format. While it does not explicitly describe the output schema or return type, the examples suffice for an agent to understand expected results. Given the tool's simplicity, no further context is needed.

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, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly mentions no parameters, and there is no additional semantic burden beyond what the empty schema already conveys. It adds context by giving examples of typical output values, which is helpful.

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 the tool lists installed Arduino cores (platform packages) with specific examples (arduino:avr, arduino:mbed_portenta). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed Arduino cores'), and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools like core_install (which installs cores) and board_list (which lists boards).

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 – if you need to see installed cores, use this tool – but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like core_install or board_list. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so the context is clear but not explicitly comparative.

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