get_shells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'GET /shells', which implies a read-only operation, and 'Retrieves all Shells' confirms the general behavior. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases such as empty results, authentication requirements, or query limitations. For a simple list operation, the basic read-only nature is evident, but richer context is absent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core functionality and adds the HTTP endpoint for technical clarity. Every word earns its place.

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, the presence of an output schema, and a well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is returned (all Shells) and the operation type. It does not need to detail return structure since the output schema exists. It falls short of 5 only because it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 only parameter 'host', providing a default and explanation. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves all Shells from the AAS server.' It uses a specific verb (Retrieves), a specific resource (all Shells), and server context (AAS). The phrase 'all Shells' distinguishes it from sibling get_shell, and the HTTP mapping 'GET /shells' adds unambiguous precision.

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 usage (use when you need all Shells) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. It lacks direct comparison to get_shell for single-shell retrieval. The guidance is mostly inferred from the resource name and HTTP endpoint, not explicitly stated.

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