emc_standards_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or the scope of 'all available,' but for a parameterless tool this is minimally acceptable.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description is sufficient for a simple list tool without parameters. But it lacks information about the output format (e.g., returns names, objects with IDs) or any ordering, which could help agents understand the result structure.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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 it lists all available EMC standards and regulations, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('EMC standards'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cispr12_limit' or 'fcc_part15_limit' which target specific standards.

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?

No guidance on when to use this general listing versus more specific sibling tools (e.g., for particular standards or limits). The description does not mention alternatives or contexts.

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