ap_shape_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states results come 'from the running build,' signaling the list is dynamic, and the word 'Typically' warns the enumerated values are not guaranteed to be exhaustive. It stops short of describing the exact return format, but for a parameterless list tool this is sufficient.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the verb and resource, and the second provides concrete typical values. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, this description is complete for practical use. It communicates the return concept (a list of built-in primitive shapes), the source (the running build), and representative examples. An agent can call this tool correctly and interpret the result without further clarification.

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 for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description focuses instead on the output and relationship to ap_shape_add.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List the built-in primitive shapes that ap_shape_add accepts.' This clearly ties it to the sibling ap_shape_add tool and distinguishes it from other list tools like ap_fs_list or ap_node_list. The scope is 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 makes the usage context obvious: use this tool to discover valid shape names to pass to ap_shape_add. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers this capability, so the intended context is clear enough.

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