list_looks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (metadata, fixture count, timestamps) and explicitly what is omitted. It stops short of stating pagination limits or permission requirements, but the read-only nature of a listing tool is implicit and the payload disclosure is the meaningful gap-filler.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into scannable sections for returns, exclusions, filtering, and sorting. Every line earns its place, though the 'most efficient way to browse' claim is marketing rather than 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned summary fields and the exclusions, and by covering filtering and sorting. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it documents the sort direction each option produces ('oldest first' default, 'recently modified first') and restates the filter semantics. The nameContains and usesFixture semantics are largely duplicated from the schema, which caps this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List looks in a project') and immediately scopes it with pagination and filtering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the get_look and get_look_usage siblings by naming what it does NOT return, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: 'use get_look for that' for fixture values and 'use get_look_usage' for usage information, plus a positive claim that this is 'the most efficient way to browse available looks.' The alternatives and the conditions selecting them are spelled out.

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