List bndf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds useful scoping context by clarifying that these are animated boundary quantities tied to solid surfaces, which is more than the annotations provide but still thin on what the listing contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that expands the acronym and states the resource with zero filler. Every word 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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the returned listing looks like. It conveys the subject ('quantities written for solid surfaces') but not the response shape or whether entries are empty by default, leaving a modest gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for or clarify.

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 ('animated boundary (BNDF) quantities'), and expands the BNDF acronym while scoping it to 'solid surfaces'. It implicitly separates itself from the add_bndf/remove_bndf siblings by the read-only 'List' verb, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative such as list_surfaces or the add_bndf/remove_bndf pair. The agent must infer that this is for inspecting which BNDF outputs exist.

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