pixera_list_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the default-selection behavior and the idPath format convention, which is genuinely useful, but it omits what a 'live system' is, whether the call is read-only/side-effect free, and any permission or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and the idPath linkage placed last where it belongs. No filler, though the second sentence's phrasing is slightly clipped.

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 the return shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers the essentials for a simple read-only list. The residual gap is the absent behavioral/permission context given that no annotations back it up.

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% for the single live_system parameter, so the schema alone is unhelpful. The description partially compensates by explaining the default ('first'), but it never clarifies the accepted identifier format or what values live_system takes.

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 resource (outputs of a live system) and enumerates the returned fields (idPath, resolution, assigned projectors and screens), which distinguishes it from siblings like pixera_list_screens and pixera_list_projectors. It is clear, though it never states the action verb explicitly and offers no direct 'not this' contrast against the other list tools.

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 '(default: first)' note implies context for omitting live_system, and the pointer that idPath is consumed by pixera_import_mappings gives a downstream usage cue. However, it never states when to call this vs pixera_list_screens/list_projectors or what prerequisites exist, leaving usage mostly inferred.

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