List product attributes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establishes the safety profile. The description adds value beyond this by clarifying the resource semantics — that it returns the full attribute dictionary with value ids and how it maps to the UI ('attributes shown on a product card'). It doesn't contradict the annotations and adds useful context about what the payload contains.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver everything efficiently: the core action with examples, contextual grounding, and a practical usage tip. No wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity listing tool with 3 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and a strong safety-annotation profile, the description is nearly complete. It could have mentioned pagination or the count of the full dictionary, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description leaves few meaningful gaps.

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 already documents all 3 parameters at 100% coverage with clear descriptions including examples ('"цвет" or "COLOR"'), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Filter by name/code' reinforces the nameContains parameter but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema carries the semantic weight here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the product attribute dictionary... with every possible value and its id') and grounds it with real-world context ('attributes shown on a product card as 'Материал', 'Цвет''). It's clear about scope and differentiates itself through domain detail (catalog attribute dictionary vs. other tools), though it doesn't explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools like oskelly_filter_values.

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 performance tip 'Filter by name/code to keep the response small' implies usage context, and the description makes the purpose clear enough to infer when to call it. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, and given siblings like oskelly_search_facets and oskelly_filter_values could overlap conceptually, some explicit exclusion or alternative mention would strengthen it.

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