list_things

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

The description discloses the basic behavior (lists all Things) and output fields, but with no annotations, the full burden is on the description. It omits potential side effects (e.g., performance for large inventories), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and informative. Every word adds value, and key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary detail.

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 and no parameters, the description provides enough context for a simple listing tool. It specifies the return fields and use case. Could mention potential pagination or size limits, but overall satisfactory.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed but does not add extra semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all Things'), the resource ('registered in the ThingWorx model'), and the exact fields returned ('Thing names, descriptions, and parent ThingTemplate'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'search_things' and 'list_thing_templates' by calling it the 'standard read path' for discovering the inventory.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to discover the industrial asset inventory') and implies it is the primary listing tool. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names suggest other tools for specific tasks.

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