direct_list_dictionaries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of revealing behavior. It signals read-only via 'READ', but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what happens with invalid names. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with an example list. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter dictionary getter, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and gives examples. However, it lacks details about exact string matching, case sensitivity, response structure, and error handling, which limits completeness.

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 schema only describes 'names' as 'DictionaryNames list', but the description adds concrete valid examples (SupplySidePlatforms, AudienceCriteriaTypes, etc.), giving the agent a clearer sense of what to pass. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 the action ('READ') and resource ('dictionaries.get'), and provides concrete examples of valid DictionaryNames. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on campaigns, ads, etc.

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 only says to supply DictionaryNames and gives examples, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is minimally implied rather than explicitly stated.

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