list_shelf_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation through 'Find' and warns about the large library ('A full install ships around 8,000 of them, so always filter'). It does not explicitly state that it does not execute the shelf tool, describe output format, or cover auth/rate considerations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight and front-loaded: the one-line purpose is followed by usage context and then a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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?

The description provides enough to invoke the tool with correct filtering and limiting, but it does not describe the shape of the returned data or whether results are names, paths, or structured objects. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, those details would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: 'filter' is a substring matched against name, label, and keywords, and 'limit' is the maximum tools to return. This is helpful and maps clearly to the two parameters, though it could offer examples of substring syntax.

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: 'Find shelf tools by name, label or keyword.' It also distinguishes this tool from node-based tools by explicitly saying it is for when a setup exists as a shelf tool rather than as a node, which clearly separates it from many node-related siblings.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when the setup is a shelf tool rather than a node, with examples ('oceans, quick sims, rigging setups'). It also gives an operational guideline ('always filter') due to scale. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_shelf_tool_script or run_shelf_tool, nor state when not to use it beyond the node contrast.

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