design_list_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; 'List' implies a side-effect-free read, which is the main trait that matters for a zero-parameter tool. However, it says nothing about whether the catalog is static or workspace-dependent, what 'properties' include, or the return shape.

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 short sentence with the resource and return scope front-loaded; no filler or redundancy.

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-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves the agent guessing what the 'properties' of each shape are and how the result should be consumed downstream (e.g., feeding design_add_shape or design_set_shape_style).

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to document. The phrase 'and their properties' adds a hint that the response carries per-shape metadata rather than bare names.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available shape types and their properties'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like design_add_shape or design_set_shape_style, but the read-only listing nature is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as design_add_shape, design_set_polygon, or design_trace_shapes, nor any preconditions. Discovery-before-creation use is only inferable from the word 'available'.

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