list_parameters

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

The read-only nature is already declared by readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with it. It adds the useful scoping detail that results come from the "active design" only, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or how user versus model parameters are treated beyond what the schema states. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is modest added value.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the usage directive second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint provided, the description only needs to establish purpose and timing, which it does. The only minor shortfall is that it never signals what user_only changes about the result set.

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%, so the sole parameter (user_only) is already fully documented as filtering out feature-created model parameters. The description adds no meaning about that filter, leaving the schema to do all the work, which matches the baseline of 3.

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?

"List every parameter in the active design with its expression, evaluated value and unit" gives a specific verb (list), resource (parameters), scope (active design), and even the fields returned. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling such as get_design_info or set_parameter, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Use this before changing dimensions" gives a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to the obvious follow-up (set_parameter). There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives named, but the read-before-write framing is clear context.

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