list_masters

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the content-addressing key set, but it also mentions dimensions not present in the input schema (offset, binning, temperature, source frames), which slightly muddies expected behavior; return format and filtering semantics are not disclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The key scoping idea is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds detail without bloating the description, though starting with an explicit verb would improve structure.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema and optional parameters, this is minimally adequate. It fails to state whether the parameters act as filters, what the returned master entries include, or how the listed addressing dimensions relate to the schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 carries the burden of explaining the four parameters. It provides a general 'content-addressed by...' clue and names camera/gain/exposure, but it does not map parameters to behavior, clarify that all are optional filters, or explain 'kind'.

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 identifies the resource (master library) and the operation (return its contents), and the parenthetical clarifies the addressing scheme. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like build_master_bias or list_jobs, though it omits an explicit imperative verb like 'List'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use list_masters versus alternatives such as match_calibration, scan_frames, or the build_master_* tools. The usage context is only implied by the name and the words 'master library contents', with no conditions or exclusions.

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