Get Theme Minifigures

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 mentions 'with prices', implying some data output, but doesn't describe response format, pagination, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extensive list of themes (over 40 items) adds bulk without clear necessity, reducing efficiency. It could be more concise by summarizing or referencing the schema for theme details, making it somewhat verbose for its informational 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's operation and integration with siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing theme examples, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details or usage tips). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List LEGO minifigures for a theme with prices.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('LEGO minifigures'), and scope ('for a theme with prices'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_minifigures' or 'lookup_minifigure' beyond listing themes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_minifigures' or 'lookup_minifigure'. It only lists themes without explaining context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

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