ass_list_extradata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-destructive read, and the return shape is documented, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe. It is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 front-loaded and efficient: it states the purpose first, then documents the return structure. The field-level return details are slightly verbose given that an output schema exists, but the content is well organized and wastes little space.

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 output schema already covers return values, yet the description spends most of its text restating them. The critical gap is input behavior: it does not explain what doc_id does, whether it is optional, or what happens when it is omitted. For an agent to call this correctly, that information is necessary.

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 0%, and the sole input parameter doc_id is never mentioned in the description. The only occurrence of 'doc_id' is in the output shape, so the description does not explain that the parameter selects which document's extradata to list, nor that it is optional with a null default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List [Aegisub Extradata] entries.' This clearly distinguishes it from the write-side sibling ass_set_extradata, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of the sibling-aware 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ass_set_extradata or ass_document_info. The purpose implies it is for inspection, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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