list_authors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only, all-encompassing list operation, which is transparent enough for a trivial endpoint. However, it does not mention output shape, ordering, pagination, or any limits, leaving some behavior implicit. The one-sentence description is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning: it specifies the action ('List'), the scope ('all available'), and the resource ('authors in PoetryDB'). It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: it lists all authors. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit return format (e.g., an array of author name strings) and any caveats like sorting or size limits, but these are easy to infer from the tool name and description. Overall, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage by being empty. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, so no points are deducted for missing parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all available authors in PoetryDB'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_author (which searches for specific authors) and list_titles (which lists titles, not authors). The purpose is immediately clear without needing to open the schema.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The intended usage—when you need the full author list—is implied by the phrase 'all available authors,' but there is no direction about choosing this over search_by_author for author lookup tasks. For a zero-dependency list tool this is acceptable but not openly stated.

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