list_seats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (seats.yaml) and the return format (seats and warnings), and hints that warnings may indicate skipped seats. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors or side effects beyond loader warnings.

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 fluff, front-loading the action. It packs the return format and a brief explanation of warnings and seat concept efficiently. Slightly dense but not verbose.

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 no-parameter listing tool, the description provides the return format, warns about possible loader warnings, and explains the domain concept of a seat. It lacks only explicit usage context, but that is covered under usage guidelines. Given the absence of an output schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 and the schema documents none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning since there are none to define.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('seats defined in seats.yaml'), and clarifies what a seat is (LLM family served by CLI). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name and description make its purpose 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description; there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor exclusions. The description does not mention any alternative tools or conditions, leaving it to the agent to infer that it is the tool for listing seats.

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