geometry_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It specifies the return type (list of names) and implies a read operation, but does not disclose safety, side effects, or permissions. Adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 adequately explains the return value. It covers the single parameter well. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention if the list is empty or behavior with invalid model names.

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 description adds meaning to the single parameter 'model_name' by stating it defaults to the current model (schema only shows anyOf string/null with default null). This clarifies the default behavior, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 'List all geometry sequences in a model,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like geometry_list_features (lists features within a sequence) and geometry_add_* (adds geometry).

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 (listing geometry sequences) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide conditions for use. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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