list_supported_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by enumerating what data will be surfaced (formats, limits, units, file root), but it does not disclose details like whether the list is complete, how results are structured, or whether the file root is resolved at call time. This is adequate, 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently lists all result categories without redundancy or filler. 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description fully specifies what an agent will receive: supported formats, processing limits, units, and local file root. No output schema exists, but the enumerated result categories are sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call the tool and what to expect.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, there is nothing to document. The schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns environment/capability information rather than taking input.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and names the exact resource categories: model/texture/export formats, processing limits, units, and the configured local file root. This is distinct from the sibling tools (inspect_model, apply_texture), which clearly inspect or mutate model data rather than enumerate tool capabilities.

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 intended usage is implied by the purpose: call this when you need to know supported formats or environment configuration. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling tools such as inspect_model, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice versus inspecting a specific model.

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