get_on_view_artworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the filtering behavior (by room or floor) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, default result ordering, or whether the results are limited to currently on-view works only. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the filtering options are stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only filtered list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It could mention that results are limited to currently on-view works and that pagination is available, but the schema already covers pagination parameters. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a list tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context by explaining that 'room' and 'floor' are gallery-specific filters, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: finding artworks currently on physical exhibition in museum galleries. It specifies the resource (artworks), the action (find), and the key constraint (currently on physical exhibition), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artworks or get_artwork.

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 when to use this tool: when looking for artworks currently on display in physical galleries, as opposed to searching the broader collection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'currently on physical exhibition' phrasing provides clear context that this is for on-view works only.

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