list_warehouses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, and provides no information about potential side effects or limitations. The description is purely a statement of intent without any 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, consisting of a single short phrase. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is arguably too sparse, providing little additional value beyond the tool name. Still, for conciseness, it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices completeness.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned list contains, how to use the 'limit' or 'sqlfilters' parameters, or any default behavior (e.g., status defaults to active). The description alone is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 low at 33% (only 'status' has a description). The description itself adds no parameter information, leaving 'limit' and 'sqlfilters' unexplained. While the schema partially documents 'status', the lack of compensation in the description for the other parameters results in insufficient parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Lister les entrepôts/dépôts de stock' (list warehouses/stock depots). It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (warehouses), and the distinction from sibling tools like get_warehouse (retrieve a single warehouse) and create_warehouse (create a warehouse) is evident from the verb and resource.

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 filtering options, default behavior, or relationships to other warehouse-related tools. There is no context about when listing is appropriate or when one should use get_warehouse instead.

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