list_coverages

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies it lists 'available' coverages, implying a read operation. While it could explicitly state it is read-only and has no side effects, the behavior is clear for a simple list operation.

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 7-word sentence. No wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in the most concise form possible.

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 tool with no parameters and a presumably descriptive output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (list of coverages). It could mention that it returns a list, but since output schema likely handles that, this is adequate.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there is no parameter information needed. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter details, as none exist.

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 'Lists all available datacubes (coverages) in rasdaman.' It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('available datacubes/coverages'), and distinguishes from siblings like describe_coverage which details a single coverage.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for getting a full list, but no mention of when not to use it (e.g., if you need details on a specific coverage, use describe_coverage). Minimal context for the agent to decide.

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