list_brushes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that mode is 'hint only', meaning it does not filter results, which is beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like side effects (expected to be none for a list operation), permissions, or any limitations. The 'mode hint' statement adds value but the transparency is incomplete.

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 concise, using only two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('List brushes') and then adds the key behavioral detail about mode and output. It is not verbose, and every word serves a purpose, though the phrase 'mode hint only' is slightly cryptic but still understandable in context.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential facts: what it lists, what it returns, and the role of the parameter. It does not explain when to prefer this over sibling list tools, but for a simple list operation, this is adequate. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format. Overall, an agent can successfully invoke this tool based on the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'mode' parameter. It clarifies that mode is a hint rather than a filter, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it does not specify what values are valid or what the hint influences. Given the minimal parameter, the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity about possible mode values.

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 action ('List brushes') and the resource (brushes), and specifies the return content ('all brush names with use flags'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming the specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only hint is 'mode hint only' which clarifies the mode parameter but not usage scenarios. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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