List masters

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the default scoping of the search. It does not over-promise or hide side effects, and the added context goes beyond the annotation.

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 succinct and well-organized: purpose first, then default behavior, then parameter details. No redundant or superfluous text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter non-nested structure, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, default options, and parameter semantics. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Both parameters are fully explained in the description text, including their meaning and default behavior (e.g., 'Look inside this stencil instead', 'Omit for the active document'). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, which contains no descriptions.

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 tool lists shape masters for use with visio_add_shape, distinguishing it from other list-type tools by specifying the resource type and associated action. It provides a specific verb and resource, making the 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 explains the default behavior when no arguments are given ('masters already used in the drawing plus every open stencil'), which offers context for typical use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like visio_list_shapes or visio_get_shape, leaving some inference to the agent.

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