list_enums

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the error behavior for unknown names, which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation or address any auth/rate considerations, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses an Args block for parameter examples. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the trailing newline and minor structural choices keep it from being maximally polished.

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, a single string parameter, and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers purpose, parameter examples, and error behavior sufficiently. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and safety notes, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 compensate for the single parameter. It does so effectively by listing concrete example enum names (Calendar, DayCounter, Frequency, etc.) and explaining the error behavior for unknown values, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific resource ('engine enum') and action ('values of'), making it clear that this tool returns enum members from the engine spec. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like engine_schema or list_endpoints, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied: the tool returns enum values and the description explains that an unknown name returns an error listing every available enum, which is a useful discovery path. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives compared to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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