List CASDA image surveys

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

The description does not contradict the annotations, which indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description's minimal contribution is adequate but not exceptional.

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 short sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, read-only, with an output schema present), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the purpose succinctly. However, it could mention that no parameters are required or that it returns a list of surveys, but the presence of the output schema reduces the burden. Overall, it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to provide parameter-level details. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4 because the schema trivially covers all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable in this case.

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 'List CASDA SIA 1 survey inventory entries' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('CASDA SIA 1 survey inventory entries'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'casda_search_images' and 'casda_search_survey_images' by focusing on survey inventory entries rather than individual images.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without any strategic advice for the AI agent.

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