list_shelves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results include 'paths, write capability, and crawling state,' but it does not mention permissions, pagination, or whether the listing triggers any refresh/crawl behavior. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the action or the returned information.

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 a simple zero-parameter list operation and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the resource and the notable fields returned, though it could say more about when to choose this listing over sibling resource-listing tools.

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 for the description to clarify. The empty input schema is consistent with the description, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List Painter shelves,' and adds the returned fields 'paths, write capability, and crawling state.' This clearly distinguishes it from mutating shelf tools like import_shelf_resource or start_shelf_refresh, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_project_resources or search_resources. The description states what the tool does but provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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