List vents

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish the safe-read profile, so the description's remaining burden is low. It helpfully discloses the returned fields, which no schema provides since there is no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no vents exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return fields in a single tight sentence. The trailing rule-ID tag is somewhat cryptic to an agent that has not read GEN-004/TRB-002/VENT-002, but it is short and does not bury the main statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the three returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only peripheral context such as whether an open project is required or the result ordering.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's field list describes output rather than inputs, which is harmless 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?

Clear verb+resource with enumerated return fields (ID, surface type, position), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It is distinguishable from list_surfaces, list_devices and list_obstacles by resource name, but the description does not explicitly state that distinction.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the natural alternatives in the sibling set (add_vent, update_vent, remove_vent, get_object_properties). The only pointer is a terse rules tag directing to bulc_knowledge_search, which is about compliance rules rather than tool selection.

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