List Fashio generation tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing behavior and discloses the returned content, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is dynamic/static. 'Lists' implies no mutation, but more explicit behavioral context would be stronger.

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 front-loads the key action and resource, then packs the output contents into a compact phrase. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: valid toolIds, input shapes, and fallback diamond prices. It is not exhaustive about response formatting, but it is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('every valid toolId for create_generation'), and specifies the returned content: input shape and fallback diamond price. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fashion_models or list_poses.

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 phrase 'for create_generation' indicates the intended use: call this tool to discover valid toolIds before invoking create_generation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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