list_strategies

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

The description is adequate for a simple read-only listing operation, but with no annotations, it could provide more detail about side effects (none), rate limits, or response size. The lack of any behavioral caveats beyond listing is acceptable but minimal.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and return data. No extraneous information. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It could mention that it returns a list or array, but the verb 'returns' implies that. Completeness is good but not flawless.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses specific verb 'list', resource 'battle strategies', and explicitly mentions returned fields (IDs, names, fighting styles, sources). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_strategy_code or run_battle.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to list available strategies), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, context from sibling tools makes usage boundaries clear.

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