list_shelf_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: a full install ships ~8,000 tools, so filtering is recommended. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, but the volume warning is genuine non-obvious context.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then usage condition, then the volume rationale, then a compact args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition is largely complete: purpose, when-to-use, volume context, and both parameters are covered. It could go slightly further on what a returned tool entry contains, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 compensate, and it does: filter is documented as a substring matched against name, label and keywords, and limit as the maximum tools to return. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare JSON schema types.

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+resource, 'Find shelf tools by name, label or keyword', which clearly states what the tool does and the search dimensions. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like run_shelf_tool or get_shelf_tool_script, which execute or fetch a single tool.

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 when-to-use context ('when a setup exists as a shelf tool rather than as a node: oceans, quick sims, rigging setups') and a practical rule ('always filter'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the node-vs-shelf-tool framing is strong routing guidance.

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