list_bros

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the tool lists all bros, reports the selected bro for a given player via currentBro, and reports all active players' selections via currentBros. It also notes that lists and currentBros are always returned. This is helpful, though it doesn't cover error cases or side-effect confirmation.

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?

Two compact sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and relationship to sibling tools, then describe the returned information. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will get (currentBro, currentBros) and how it relates to swap_bro/set_bro. Minor gaps such as precise output structure are understandable without an output schema but leave slight room for interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that playerNum selects a player for the currentBro readout, but the schema already states this and the default. No significant new parameter meaning is added beyond structured fields.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available bros'), and distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by noting these are bros 'that can be used with swap_bro and set_bro.' It also clarifies that it reports both currentBro and currentBros, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is the inventory/read tool to use before invoking swap_bro or set_bro, providing useful usage context. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this when...' or mention exclusion cases, but no alternative listing tool exists among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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