list_shape_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. For a list operation, read-only behavior is implied but not stated, and return format is not mentioned.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'object' parameter, the output format, or any edge cases. While the output schema exists, the description still fails to provide essential context for correct invocation.

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 schema has one parameter 'object' with no description, and the description provides zero information about it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. The agent is left to guess what 'object' refers to (likely an object name), with no clarification.

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 clear verb ('list') and resource ('shape keys'), which is sufficient to understand the core action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'set_shape_key' by the verb. However, it does not explicitly mention the object scope, leaving some ambiguity about which object's shape keys are listed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when to choose another tool like 'set_shape_key'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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