assets-shader-list-all

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

Describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description adequately conveys the simple, safe nature of the tool. Could add details on scope (what 'available' means), but sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: one states the action and result, the second provides a practical use case. No fluff, front-loaded with essential info.

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 complete enough. It tells what it returns (names) and gives a usage context. Could mention if built-in shaders are included, but overall 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 applies, and the description adds value by specifying return value (names).

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?

Explicitly states it lists all available shaders in project assets and packages, returns names, and mentions a specific use case (finding a shader name for 'assets-material-create'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides a clear use case: use to find shader name for 'assets-material-create'. Does not mention when not to use, but the positive guidance is strong and directly addresses a common scenario.

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