mike_results_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists contents (non-destructive), specifies scope (quantities, element counts, time range), and notes 'No license needed'. No behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient. No contradiction with missing annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool lists and returns (quantities, element counts, time range). Missing details like output format (list vs. dictionary) but likely implied; still sufficient for basic understanding.

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 description coverage is 100% (single parameter with description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('Path to a .res1d file.'). It does not provide format, constraints, or alternatives, so 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 action ('list') and the resource (MIKE+ .res1d file contents), specifying the types of information returned: quantities, element counts with sample ids, and time range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mike_get_values or mike_results_summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. The description mentions 'No license needed' as a prerequisite, but does not explain when to choose mike_results_list versus mike_get_values, mike_results_summary, or other list-oriented tools. Implied usage but no clear alternatives or exclusions.

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