anythingllm_list_embeds

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the key context that 'embeds' are 'public chat widgets', but discloses no additional behavioral details such as return format or pagination. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 clearly states the purpose and clarifies terminology. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple list-all tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope ('all embed configurations'), and because an output schema exists, return format details are not needed in the description. It is complete for its complexity.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema needs, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('embed configurations') and clarifies the meaning with 'public chat widgets'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like anythingllm_list_workspaces and anythingllm_list_documents.

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: when you need to see embed configurations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. For a trivial list operation, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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