list_allocated_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature, data source (project JSON vs. hand-maintained list), the precise allocation definition (declared or referenced anywhere), and the return shape ({ count, highest, gaps, declaredCapacity, allocated[], coverage }). This is exemplary transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: the data-source caveat, allocation definition, usage guidance, and alternative tool reference. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description specifies the return structure and gives enough behavioral detail to understand the tool's full functionality. It covers what the tool counts, how it behaves, when to use it, and what it returns, making it self-sufficient.

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 schema already covers both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by explaining that 'id' answers 'where is switch 23 actually used?' and clarifying the scope of 'type' via the namespace list, elevating it slightly above pure schema reliance.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource: allocated IDs across switch, variable, and common_event namespaces. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like next_free_id and list_names, making the tool's niche unmistakable.

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?

It provides direct guidance: 'Use this before reusing an id' and explains when to pass the id parameter for targeted lookup. It names the alternative tool (next_free_id) for claiming a fresh id, offering clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use direction.

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