list_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that each run is printed with its exact variant_set_db_id, that the middle segment is a numeric project index rather than a name, and warns that using the name causes an opaque HTTP 500. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' statement.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the critical id-format pitfall with a concrete example, and the third points to a sibling tool. The key warning is front-loaded and formatted distinctly, making it easy to parse.

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 with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is listed, how to interpret the ids, what mistake to avoid, and a viable alternative. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; it instead clarifies the output id format, which is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the databases, projects and runs currently hosted on the Gigwa server.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the server-wide listing and by referencing list_variant_sets as an alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use the printed variant_set_db_id verbatim in other tools, don't assemble it by hand, and notes that using the project name is a common mistake. It also explicitly offers list_variant_sets as a preferred alternative for a flatter list, satisfying the when-and-alternative requirement.

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