List team OpModes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states it lists items, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or safe. For a list tool, the behavioral transparency is adequate but could be improved by stating it is read-only.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently and is well front-loaded.

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 has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete high-level understanding. It could be slightly more thorough by mentioning the output format (e.g., returns names) or that it filters by annotation, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter (projectPath), so the description adds no additional value beyond the schema. The tool's purpose is straightforward, and the parameter is self-explanatory, thus score is baseline 3.

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 action ('List'), the target ('all @TeleOp/@Autonomous OpModes'), and the location ('in the project's TeamCode module'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_samples and list_subsystems by specifying OpModes and the filter by annotation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_samples or list_subsystems). It also lacks information about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and brief description.

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