list_solvers

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint=false, which does not address safety or side effects. The description merely states 'List MiniZinc solvers' without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond the operation itself, such as return format or whether it's read-only. With minimal annotation coverage, the description fails to add needed context.

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 filler, which is appropriately sized for a parameterless list tool. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 that an output schema exists (which handles return value details) and there are no parameters, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose. It could be more explicit about scope (e.g., 'all available solvers'), but it is reasonably complete for a simple list operation.

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 there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter information since none is required.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('MiniZinc solvers'), making the operation specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like validate_model or solve_model, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 the sibling tools. While the name is self-explanatory, the description doesn't state any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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