list_dtms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the output content without implying side effects. The verb 'List' inherently signals a read-only operation, and the description includes the exact fields returned, which is key behavioral transparency. However, it does not state anything about prerequisites (e.g., project must be open) or potential error conditions, though for a zero-parameter tool these are less critical.

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, dense sentence that leads with the action and resource, then immediately details the content of the output. It contains no filler or repetition—every clause adds value. This is exceptionally concise while still being informative.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the primary data fields returned and the scope (communication/master DTMs and slaves). It does not describe the exact format (e.g., list vs. hierarchical tree), but 'topology' implies structure and the fields listed give a clear idea of the result. An agent can call this tool with confidence about what to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has full coverage by default. The description doesn't need to add parameter information; the tool takes no input. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 identifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'project's DTM topology', and enumerates the specific data returned (names, DTM ids, types, bus addresses). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like add_dtm, set_dtm_address, or delete_dtm, which are mutation operations.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is applicable—when an agent needs to inspect the DTM topology. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the listing nature and the specificity of 'DTM Browser' make the purpose unambiguous. No exclusions are provided, but it's easy to infer that alternatives like get_hardware or list_networks are for other perspectives.

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