list_rigs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rigs come from a built-in sample plus the POSELAB_RIGS file, which is genuinely useful environmental context, but it never states that this is a read-only enumeration, what the result looks like, or what happens if the rigs file is missing or unset.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. However, the one sentence spends its words on the composition of the rig list rather than on the action performed, which is the more valuable information to front-load.

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?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for conveying what comes back, and it does not say the tool returns a list of rig names/identifiers or how they are used downstream. For a discovery tool whose result feeds load_rig, this leaves a real gap despite the schema being trivial.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The sentence does not mislead about inputs, though it is written as if it describes an input.

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 is a noun phrase that never states an action — it reads like a parameter description ('the rigs to load') rather than a tool description. It restates the resource named in the tool title without saying that the tool lists/enumerates rigs. The only added value is naming the two sources of rigs, which does not clarify what the tool does.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the sibling load_rig, or whether it should precede loading a rig. It does not state any condition, prerequisite, or alternative. An agent must infer the relationship between list_rigs and load_rig entirely on its own.

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