list_costumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no behavioral context such as filtering, limits, or return shape, but for a simple non-mutating list tool the annotation coverage is adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the parenthetical 'like lib-examples: starter art inventory' is vague and may confuse rather than help, preventing a perfect score.

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 two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves important details unstated: what 'path' means, how 'target' is formatted, and what the returned list looks like. This is too incomplete for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies 'target' and gives a cryptic 'like lib-examples: starter art inventory' example; the 'path' parameter is never explained. This is insufficient for a tool with minimal schema support.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('costumes/backdrops') scoped to a target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sounds and list_blocks, though the combined 'costumes/backdrops' phrasing and the parenthetical example are slightly imprecise.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sounds or list_blocks. The only implied context comes from the tool's name and resource type; no exclusions or explicit conditions are provided.

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