nhgis_list_shapefiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only list and specifies the return value. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite the presence of pageSize and pageNumber parameters, nor any other behavioral nuances. This is a notable gap.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, two optional parameters), the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return value. It lacks explicit mention of pagination, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('List all available NHGIS shapefiles') and the resource (shapefiles/boundary files). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it returns identifiers for census geographies usable in extracts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a use case: to obtain identifiers for inclusion in extracts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's name and the mention of using identifiers in extracts provide sufficient context for when to select this tool over other list tools.

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