get_udts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — that only names are returned, not full type definitions — which is the key thing an agent needs to know. However it says nothing about whether the call is read-only (implied by 'List'), error behavior on a bad path, or output shape, though an output schema exists.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The Args block is slightly redundant boilerplate for a single parameter, but it is where the only parameter documentation lives, 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?

For a single-parameter, read-oriented listing tool with an output schema present, the definition covers what the tool returns (names) and how to invoke it (file path). The main remaining gap is the relationship to load_project and whether the L5X must be pre-loaded, which is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the single parameter as 'Path to a .l5x file', which conveys the expected file type and format that the bare string schema does not. It stops short of stating whether the path must be absolute or whether the file must already be loaded.

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) and resource (User Defined Type names in an L5X project), with the 'names' scope explicitly narrowing it to identifiers only. This naturally distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_udt, which an agent can infer returns details for one type without opening its schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing UDT names is the obvious precursor to calling get_udt for a specific type, and it requires an already-available .l5x path. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the project must be loaded first via load_project.

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