list_measurements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the description enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's behavior reasonably transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention potential limitations like large result handling.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by concrete details. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete: it states what the tool does, what data it returns, and how that data should be used. The mention of UUID stability adds important cross-tool context. No further information is needed for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description's role is to clarify output rather than input. It adds value by enumerating the fields returned (UUID, index, title, notes, date, frequency range), which is meaningful beyond the empty input schema. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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 the tool's function: 'List all measurements currently loaded in REW' with a specific list of returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_measurement, which implies retrieving a specific measurement rather than listing all.

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 provides clear usage context by noting that UUIDs are the stable way to reference measurements in other tools, implicitly guiding the agent to use this tool to obtain UUIDs before invoking other measurement tools. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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