list_masters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and states that shape counts are included, but it does not explicitly state side effects, file access requirements, ordering, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, compact sentence that is easy to scan and contains no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core action and output ('with shape counts'), but it omits contextual details like valid path values, whether the stencil must be loaded, and how this relates to sibling stencil tools. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.

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 schema provides only a bare string parameter 'stencil_path' with 0% descriptive coverage. The description mentions 'stencil file' but does not clarify whether the path is filesystem-based, relative, or must match a previously loaded stencil. The parameter meaning is only partially inferred from the description, so it does not adequately compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('masters (symbols) in a stencil file') and an output detail ('with shape counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stencils (lists stencil files) and list_shapes (lists shapes in a document).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as loading a stencil first. It does not mention whether stencil_path should be a file path, a loaded stencil name, or something else, leaving the selection and invocation context ambiguous.

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