list_validation_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it accesses external systems, or any limitations such as record volume or filters. The phrase 'machine-readable' hints at output format but not behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned records contain or any specifics about the record format. It only says 'machine-readable real-hardware validation records', which is vague. The context of sibling tools suggests this is a hardware debug environment, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the output's structure or content.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The description is not required to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No further detail is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'machine-readable real-hardware validation records', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connected_probes or list_rtos_tasks. The qualifiers 'machine-readable' and 'real-hardware' add useful specificity without ambiguity.

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, no mention of exclusions, and no mention of any prerequisites or typical scenarios. For a list operation, one might expect a statement like 'Use when you need the complete set of validation records; other tools provide filtered views.' This is absent.

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