list_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return value (JSON with extensions, capabilities, versions) but does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The description is functional but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff. Ideal structure for an info retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no required inputs), the description adequately covers the purpose and output. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not required. However, mention of prerequisites or usage context is missing, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by outlining the output contents (extensions, read/write capabilities, library versions), which exceeds the baseline of 3 for full coverage. This justifies a score of 4.

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 tool's action ('List supported dataset formats and installed library versions') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on dataset format capabilities and library versions.

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 implicitly conveys usage (call to check available formats and versions), but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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