list_patcher_boxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important behavior: the bridge may automatically fall back to a smaller response when full enumeration times out on larger patchers. It also clarifies the effect of named_only. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only listing that is acceptable.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the following sentences add necessary detail about parameters and fallback behavior without any fluff.

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 relatively simple list tool, the description covers the main purpose, the key parameter, and a timeout fallback. However, bridge_session_id remains unexplained, preventing full completeness. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return value details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains named_only=True but says nothing about bridge_session_id, leaving that parameter ambiguous. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool lists boxes in the attached patcher. The verb 'list' and resource 'boxes' are specific, and 'attached patcher' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_box_attrs or create_box.

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 for use: to list all boxes in the current patcher. It also explains the named_only parameter and mentions an automatic fallback behavior on large patchers. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives or provide exclusions.

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