list_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, the description is minimal—it doesn't disclose behavior beyond the fact that it lists attribute names by type. No mention of authentication, rate limits, side effects (it is read-only presumably), or what happens on invalid input. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. It packs the core information (list attribute names, the type parameter, and valid values) into a compact format.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a basic list operation. However, it could have added value by clarifying the 'port' parameter's role or mentioning if the list is sorted or limited, which would make it more complete.

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, and the description only hints at the 'attribute_type' parameter by listing valid types. There is no mention of the 'port' parameter at all, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the raw schema shows. Since the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, this scores low.

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's verb (list) and resource (attribute names) with a specific type parameter (Layer, BuildingMaterial, Composite, Surface, Profile, ZoneCategory). This effectively differentiates it from siblings like list_instances or list_rules, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for comparison.

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 by indicating that the type parameter is required and lists valid types, which tells the agent when to use this tool (to list attributes by type). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives from the sibling tools, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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