list_piggy_banks

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' communicates a read-only collection operation, but the description does not disclose response format, ordering, pagination, or any error/permission implications.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains no filler or redundant information. It is as concise as a description can be while still expressing the core operation.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, 'List all piggy banks' conveys the essential behavior. It could be improved by noting the expected return value, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the call correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema already covers them completely by having an empty properties object. The description adds nothing parameter-related, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 operation (list) on a specific resource (piggy banks). The word 'all' defines the scope and distinguishes it from create/update/delete piggy-bank siblings.

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 implies the use case—retrieve the full collection of piggy banks—but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools or any exclusions. No preconditions are mentioned, which is acceptable for a parameterless list call.

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