List shapes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals that x and y coordinates represent the shape's centre in inches from the bottom-left of the page, and that include_connectors can hide connector lines. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag and helps agents interpret output correctly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a key usage note, a brief coordinate clarification, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 three optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, how to specify page and document, and how to control connectors. It also explains the coordinate system, so an agent can call the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 must fully compensate, and it does. The 'Args' section explains each parameter: page accepts a name or 1-based index with a default behavior, document similarly, and include_connectors controls whether connectors are returned. This is explicit, actionable guidance that the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shapes on a page') with the data returned (id, text, master, geometry). The line 'This is the way to find the shape ids every editing tool needs' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve different purposes, such as visio_get_shape or visio_search_text.

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?

Provides a clear usage directive: 'This is the way to find the shape ids every editing tool needs' tells agents this is the go-to tool for obtaining shape IDs, which is critical for editing workflows. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like visio_get_shape or visio_search_text, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use list, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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