list_friends

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

There are no annotations and the description only says 'List friends.' It does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any potential side effects. The description is too minimal to fully disclose the tool's behavior.

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, consisting of two words. Every word is necessary and no redundant information is present. It is perfectly structured for such a simple tool.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a tool with no parameters and no output schema. It conveys the core function without requiring additional context. A slight improvement could be specifying the return type (e.g., 'Returns a list of friends.'), but this is not essential given the simplicity.

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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-related information because there is nothing to add. This is appropriate and complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'List friends.' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (friends), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list recipes, courses, cuisines, etc. It is unambiguous and specific.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or when-to-use guidance is given, the tool name and description make its purpose self-evident. The context of sibling tools (e.g., list_recipes) implies that this is the appropriate tool for retrieving friends, so no additional guidance is needed.

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