list_shows_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing and returns raw response, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any permissions. Minimal behavioral 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 very concise: two sentences for purpose and one parameter explanation. No fluff, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 param, no required, output schema present), the description is adequate but could be more complete: e.g., mention ordering, behavior on empty result, or error scenarios. It doesn't cover edge cases or full behavior.

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 only parameter 'filter' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining it as an optional filter pattern with an example ('Mac*'). This adds value beyond the schema, though syntax details are minimal.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'available show files', and the context 'grandMA2 console'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'load_show_tool' and 'new_show_tool' that operate on shows but do different actions.

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 implies usage (when you want to see available shows) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of exclusion criteria or alternative tools for listing other resources.

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