stellar_xdr_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source ('bundled XDR JSON engine') and the output nature (a list of type names), which is reasonable for a read-only listing tool. However, it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature, mention output format details, or address edge cases like empty results or the effect of the prefix filter, leaving some behavioral surface unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, the object, the purpose, and a useful contextual detail (the bundled engine) in a compact and scannable form.

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 simple tool with one optional, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it clearly indicates the tool returns a list of type names. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure (e.g., an array of strings) and how this list relates to the sibling tool stellar_xdr_json_schema, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 100% because the only parameter, 'prefix', is already documented with its meaning and case-insensitivity. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('supported Stellar XDR type names') and an explicit purpose ('for encode/decode/schema'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stellar_xdr_encode/decode (which operate on data) and stellar_xdr_json_schema (which returns schemas), making the tool's role immediately identifiable.

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 encode/decode/schema' implies the tool is a registry for discovering valid type names before using related XDR operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like stellar_xdr_json_schema, nor does it describe any exclusions or complementary use cases, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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