mbta_list_all_stops

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions client-side fuzzy search but lacks details on performance implications, data freshness, rate limits, or pagination (though max_results is noted). The description is thin on behavioral traits.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary wording, front-loading the main action clearly.

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?

Despite the tool not having an output schema or annotations, the description does not cover important aspects like error handling, potential performance with large datasets, or the nature of the return values. It is minimal for a list-all tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds the concept of 'client-side fuzzy search' for the query parameter, which adds some context beyond the schema, but not significantly more.

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 it lists all MBTA stops with optional fuzzy filtering, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mbta_get_stops' and 'mbta_search_stops' by indicating it returns all stops without filters and handles search client-side.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mbta_get_stops' or 'mbta_search_stops'. The description does not provide context for selection criteria.

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