vnt_list_formats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or return behavior. It adds scope information but no additional behavioral traits such as 'no side effects' or 'returns a list of format names'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and scope.

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 simple no-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete. It names the exact resource and scope. The lack of output schema means it could mention the return format, but 'list script formats' sufficiently implies a list of format identifiers. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or whether the list is static/dynamic.

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, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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') and the resource ('script formats'), with a specific scope ('pure-Python vnt_* bundle layer') and an explicit exclusion ('not VNTextPatch CLI'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like audio_list_formats and archive_list_formats.

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 clear context about the tool's scope and an exclusion ('not VNTextPatch CLI'), which helps the agent know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when to use' guidance beyond the scope statement.

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