get_armors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the tool returns the complete, unfiltered set of armors, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits any details about return format, pagination, or potential errors, so behavioral transparency is limited.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It doesn't waste words and is appropriately sized for such a simple 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?

The tool is extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states it fetches all armors, but doesn't elaborate on the response structure or any limitations. For a basic list getter, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement, so a 3 is fitting.

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 there are no parameters to document. The schema's 100% coverage is trivially satisfied, and the description doesn't need to explain any inputs; baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get all armors from the project' clearly identifies the tool as a read operation to fetch every armor entity. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other get_* tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_items or get_items.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_items or search_items. It doesn't mention any filtering or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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