list_addons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral fact is the "local workspace" scope, which hints that results are limited to on-disk/workspace addons rather than remote ones — useful but thin. Nothing is said about whether the optional game filter narrows results or how many addons come back, though the presence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is not bloated, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the tools around it.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, annotations present, output schema present), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits whether listing is filtered by the 'game' default and how this relates to get_addon, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%: the single 'game' parameter is documented inline with its allowed values (cs2, deadlock) and a default. The description adds nothing about how filtering behaves when 'game' is omitted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List addons") plus a scope qualifier ("local workspace"), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_addon or list_projects, leaving the agent to infer which of several listing/lookup tools fits.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_addon, read_addon_file, or scaffold_addon, and no mention of prerequisites or the typical list-then-get flow. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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