cavalry_list_attributes

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it. The warning about silent failures on write is useful but relates to other tools, not this tool's own behavior. An explicit 'read-only' statement would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's core function, the second provides essential usage advice. No wasted words. Every sentence 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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of return values (attribute properties). It also explains the includeValues parameter's effect. Could optionally mention whether the result is a flat list or nested, but not essential.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds semantic context by explaining what attributes are returned (type, nice name, children, animated flag), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the output meaning.

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?

Clearly states it lists attributes on a layer with specific properties (type, nice name, children, animated flag). While it distinguishes from guessing paths, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cavalry_get_attribute, though the verb 'list' vs 'get' is implicit.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of guessing attribute paths, with a concrete justification (attribute names not derivable from UI labels, silent failure on write). Provides clear when-to-use guidance but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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