list_fabrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Does not mutate the MD scene,' which is a valuable non-destructive indicator for a listing operation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether an open project or scene is required, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary output ('All object-browser fabrics plus current-colorway used count') and then adds the crucial non-mutation note. Every word contributes value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description states both the content returned and the non-mutating behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about return formatting could help, but the simplicity of the tool lowers that burden. Preconditions like an open scene are not mentioned, but this is a minor gap for a listing operation.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema completely defines the call signature. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific detail; it simply describes what the tool returns. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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 identifies the resource ('all object-browser fabrics') and the specific data point ('current-colorway used count'), making the tool's purpose clear despite lacking an explicit verb. It is distinct from sibling tools like fabric_material or get_pattern_fabric because it targets a full fabric list with a count. The absence of an explicit 'list' verb is mitigated by the tool name and the listing-style phrasing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fabric_material, get_pattern_fabric, or assign_fabric. The description offers context but no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer when this listing is appropriate.

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