list_sketch_dimensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry this burden. Saying 'List existing' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose significant behavior such as whether max_items truncates results, how the list is ordered, whether all dimensions are returned by default, or any operational limits that could affect an agent's interpretation of the result.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the mention of return fields is compact and immediately useful.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to scope the listing via sketch_ref/document_id, what kinds values look like, or what max_items does. An agent would need to guess or probe the parameters to use the tool correctly beyond a default unfiltered call.

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%, and the description names only returned fields, not the four parameters (kinds, max_items, sketch_ref, document_id). An agent cannot infer that sketch_ref and document_id likely filter the list, that kinds selects dimension types, or that max_items caps results. The description provides no parameter-level value.

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'), a clear resource ('sketch dimensions'), and names the return fields ('reference, index, fingerprint, and placement fields'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_sketch_dimension, which implies a single-item inspection rather than a listing operation.

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 verb 'List' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related siblings such as inspect_sketch_dimension or list_sketch_constraints. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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