Equipment List Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' makes the read-only nature clear, and 'where available' signals that battery visibility is conditional, but the description does not disclose ordering, scope, or how missing battery links will appear beyond that phrase.

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: the core operation 'List equipment' comes first, followed by the qualifier 'with linked battery visibility where available.' There is 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?

For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient: it states the resource, the action, and the key visible feature. It loses one point only because 'where available' is vague and no sibling relationship or expected scope is mentioned.

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 zero parameters and no properties, so there is nothing for the description to explain. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('equipment'), while adding a distinguishing feature ('linked battery visibility where available') that separates it from a plain equipment list and from battery-specific tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with equipment_details_tool, but the intent is clear and unambiguous.

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 implies use when the agent needs an overview of equipment with battery associations, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as batteries_list_tool or equipment_details_tool, so usage guidance is only implied.

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