list_machine_manuals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the operation is a list, the location, the file types, and the exact return fields. It doesn't mention sorting or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate; no side effects or permissions are implied.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose first and usage guidance second. Every clause adds value: location, file types, usage context, and return format.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, and an output schema exists. The description covers the tool's purpose, location, and return format, and includes a crucial usage instruction about passing filenames exactly as-is. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to explain, and the return-value note helps clarify output but that's not parameter semantics.

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 'List all machine manuals in resources/machine_manuals/ (PDF/TXT)', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on listing rather than reading or extracting, and explicitly names usage with siblings.

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 says 'Use before read_manual_excerpt / extract_manual_specs', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It also instructs to 'pass the returned filenames exactly as-is', which guides the agent on how to use the output. No alternative for 'when not to use' is given, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple listing operation.

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