Список справочных таблиц

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and requires no authorization, which are essential behavioral traits. It also mentions the return includes cache version. It does not cover errors or performance, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that state the core function and key behavioral constraints. Every word adds value, and the primary information (what is listed) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (names, sizes, cache version) and access requirements (read-only, no auth). For a simple list tool, this is complete; an agent can call it without further guidance.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the guidelines, baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds operational context but no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 explicitly states the tool returns names and sizes of all public reference directories under /data/, including cache version. It clearly identifies the resource and function, distinguishing it from siblings like taxi_reference_get which likely fetches a specific table.

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 implies this tool is for listing available reference tables but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The read-only and no-auth statements hint at safe usage but do not direct selection among siblings.

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