imgui_list_fonts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. While the word 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, disclose output format, or describe whether it reflects current vs all-loaded state. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, more explicit disclosure would be valuable.

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?

One concise sentence, no waste. It efficiently packs the essential information (what's listed: fonts, paths, sizes, active font). Slightly under-specified in terms of behavioral stance but appropriately brief.

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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the complexity bar is low. The description covers the key information a caller needs to understand the purpose and expected return content. It's adequate but doesn't elaborate on return structure, which for a simple list tool is acceptable.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter meaning. The baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool; the description reasonably focuses on what information the call returns.

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 lists loaded fonts, their native paths and sizes, and which font is active. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It's distinguishable from siblings like imgui_set_font and imgui_load_font, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies a read-only inspection use case (listing fonts) which naturally contrasts with set/load font operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative-referencing guidance is provided.

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