List gear

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is included and the example reminder threshold, but it does not disclose operational details such as pagination, default retired-gear filtering, or type-filter behavior beyond the schema.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives concrete examples and the key return fields. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy with the annotations.

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 simple read-only list tool with zero required parameters, a full output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it does not call out optional filtering or retired-gear handling, but the schema covers those details.

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 100%, so both the optional type and include_retired parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond generic examples of gear types, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair "List gear" and then expands with concrete examples (running shoes, bikes) and the data returned (distance, time, activity count, maintenance/replacement reminders). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mutation tools like update_gear or add_gear_reminder.

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?

It is clear that this tool is for retrieving gear inventory with accumulated stats and reminders, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only verb and the resource focus provide enough context for correct selection among siblings.

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