ds_list_avus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the target kinds. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what the result shape is, or how empty results are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the target list follows immediately.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on inputs but silent on return values and safety profile. It covers the minimum but leaves the agent guessing about result shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the enum. The description adds mild value by mapping 'file (data-object)' and 'directory (collection)' onto the single 'path' target_type, clarifying that path covers both cases, but adds no syntax or format detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List AVUs') and enumerates the four kinds of targets it operates on. It distinguishes itself from the add/delete AVU siblings by naming the read direction, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ds_get_metadata that may also surface AVUs.

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 says what the tool lists but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent choosing between ds_list_avus, ds_get_metadata, and ds_search_files_by_avu gets no routing help from this description.

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