list_equalisers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core function ('List... models REW can generate filters for') but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, or whether any side effects exist. For a list operation, the lack of explicit read-only/disclosure is a gap.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core meaning but omits details about the return value or typical usage context. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of strings, array of objects), but given the simplicity and rich sibling context, it is minimally adequate.

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 input schema is fully self-documented (100% coverage) with a clear description for 'manufacturer' including an example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already handles it adequately, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('equaliser hardware models'), and a qualifier ('REW can generate filters for') that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is useful for discovering supported hardware before using eq-related tools like auto_eq or get_eq_filters, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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