io_list_floors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lowered. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or what the response looks like, but it also does not contradict the annotation.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a seven-parameter tool.

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 rich schema and readOnlyHint cover most of what an agent needs, and there is no output schema to explain. Still, the description is silent on pagination (limit/startAt), sorting, and search filtering, which matter for a full-featured list endpoint.

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%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters including the view enum, pagination, sorting, and search. The description only mentions buildingId, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List iOffice floors'), which clearly contrasts with the singular sibling io_get_floor. However, it does not acknowledge the broader listing family (io_list_spaces, io_list_buildings) or scope beyond the building filter, so some sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 says nothing about when to choose this tool over io_get_floor (retrieve one floor) or which listing tool to use for other resources. 'Optionally filter by building ID' hints at a use case but is not guidance; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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