list_designs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: folders are not searched recursively, with the rationale that walking a large folder tree froze Fusion. That performance/correctness caveat is real added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the operational caveat in parentheses. The examples and the freeze rationale earn their place, though the sentence is long enough that a reader must parse several clauses.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, parameter behavior, examples, and the non-recursion constraint. It stops short of describing the return shape (design names vs paths vs libraries), a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must carry the 'folder' parameter. It does so well: it defines the parameter as a single folder path, gives concrete examples ('Live tests', 'Parts/Connectors'), and clarifies that omitting it defaults to the project top folder.

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 (electronics designs and libraries) plus the exact scope (active Fusion project's top folder). An agent can distinguish it from list_parts/list_nets/list_pours by resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies when to pass a folder versus leaving it default, and explains the non-recursive constraint. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many other list_* siblings.

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