list_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a 'compact read', implying non-destructive, and clarifies that it only includes 'committed' shapes, not drafts. It also notes that filters narrow results, which informs the caller about side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention authorization needs or potential error conditions beyond the schema's 'condition must exist'.

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 informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three sentences: the first lists the returned fields and positions the tool, the second explains its use case relative to siblings, and the third clarifies filter semantics. While the first sentence is long, every part adds value, so it earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains what fields are included, how filters behave, and when to use it, which is sufficient for a read-only list tool. It could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid condition), but the schema already notes the condition must exist, making this reasonably 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?

The schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Only shapes on this sheet', 'Only shapes under this finish tag (must exist)'), so the description adds limited new meaning. It reinforces that the two filters can be combined and that they narrow results, but this does not go significantly beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 all committed shapes with specific fields (id, sheet, condition tag, etc.), using the verb 'list' plus the resource 'shapes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a compact read that provides ids for edit_shape and delete_shape without pulling the full export_takeoff payload.

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 when to use this tool: to obtain ids that edit_shape and delete_shape assume, while avoiding the heavier export_takeoff. It also clarifies that filters (by sheet, condition) narrow results and that an empty list is a valid result, not an error, which sets user expectations.

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