list_fixtures

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no further context about return format, filtering behavior, or scope limitations. It is not misleading but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and gets straight to the point.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, and the schema covers the only parameter. Minor gap: it does not mention what the returned list contains (e.g., names, IDs), but this is likely inferred from 'fixtures'.

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% (the only parameter 'tags' has a clear description). The tool description adds no information about the parameter, so it does not enhance what the schema already 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 'List all available test fixtures' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('test fixtures'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (run_fixture, run_all_fixtures) by focusing on listing rather than running.

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 (list fixtures when you need to see what's available) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like run_fixture or run_all_fixtures, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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