get_aois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it: "List all" implies a non-mutating read of a local file, so no side effects are suggested. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing/invalid .l5x path), size of result sets, or any file-access requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the Args block is compact. Slight redundancy in re-declaring the parameter type already visible in the schema, but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and this is a simple one-parameter lister. The only real gap is the absence of any prerequisite or error context, which keeps it just short of fully 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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only restates it as "Path to a .l5x file." That adds a small amount of meaning (file type) but no format, path style, or validation detail, so it only partly compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("List all") and resource ("Add-On Instructions in an L5X project"), which cleanly separates it from unrelated siblings like get_routines or get_tags. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular get_aoi sibling, but the plural/"all" scoping makes the distinction inferable.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the singular alternative get_aoi for fetching one instruction, and no prerequisite information (e.g., whether load_project must run first). The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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