list_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists parameters with resolved values, expressions, units, and comments, which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or performance implications. Since it's a listing operation, the behavior is fairly predictable, but the description could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action 'List all user parameters'. It includes the key details (resolved values, expressions, units, comments) without any fluff. 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete for a listing operation. It tells the agent what the tool does and what information will be included. It could potentially mention the return format or any limitations, but for a simple list operation, this is adequate. The sibling tools suggest a CAD environment, and this tool fits well.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by specifying what is included in the listing (resolved values, expressions, units, comments), which is useful for the agent to know what to expect. Since there are no parameters, the description's role is to clarify the output content, which it does.

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 clearly states the tool lists all user parameters with resolved values, expressions, units, and comments. It specifies the resource (user parameters) and the action (list), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like add_parameters or update_parameter, but the verb 'list' and the scope 'all user parameters' make it distinct enough.

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 implies usage for retrieving all user parameters, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. Given the context of sibling tools like add_parameters and update_parameter, the description could benefit from stating that this is for read-only listing, but it's not misleading.

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