list_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what each returned format record contains (engine, target length, rules), which serves as a lightweight substitute for the missing output schema, but it does not state that the result is a collection or how many formats typically exist.

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?

A single short sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded and the field detail trailing as a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the fragmentary phrasing leaves the verb implicit.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — the shape of each returned format. What remains unsaid (ordering, whether formats are few and stable) is low-stakes for invocation.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the parenthetical field list actually corresponds to return values rather than inputs, which is a slight mismatch of focus but harmless.

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 names a specific resource — the series formats the studio makes — and parenthetically lists the fields each one carries (engine, target length, rules), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_house_rules or get_engine_guide that cover single facets. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb, so the 'list' action is only implied by the tool name, not the description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as get_house_rules and get_engine_guide in the same studio domain, the description never says whether this is the entry point for discovering formats or whether house rules should be fetched separately.

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