list_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the default behavior (returns all parameters grouped by section) and the filtering mechanism, which is important for an agent. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results, but for a read-only lookup tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It is highly scannable and informative.

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 listing tool with one optional query parameter, the description provides essential context: the tool returns parameters, ranges, defaults, and groups results by section. Since an output schema exists, the lack of detailed return format explanation is acceptable, and the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter 'query' has zero schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining that it filters by section name or parameter name and provides examples. This goes beyond the schema, which only states the type and default, giving agents a clear understanding of what to pass.

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 clearly states the tool "looks up" Space Dust parameters, including ranges and defaults. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_presets and read_current_sound, which handle different concepts (presets and current sound).

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 provides clear guidance on how to filter with a word (e.g., section name or parameter name) and explains the default behavior when no query is given. It implies the tool is for parameter lookups but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, making it just short of a 5.

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