arrangement_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists names for body placement, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't state return format (e.g., array of strings) or whether it errors if no avatar is loaded. This is adequate for a simple query but leaves some behavioral specifics unclear.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and resource 'arrangement points', followed by a parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. Ideal length for a zero-parameter tool.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. However, it doesn't specify the exact return type or structure (e.g., whether it's a simple array of names or a mapped object), and it doesn't note potential prerequisites like an active avatar. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 3 is fair.

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 reflects that with an empty properties object. The description adds meaning by explaining what the arrangement points are for ('names used to place pattern pieces on the body'), which is valuable context beyond the schema's emptiness. Since there are no parameters to document, a 4 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'arrangement points', and adds context that these are names used to place pattern pieces on the body. It distinguishes itself from pattern_set_arrangement by focusing on reading vs. setting. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (like pattern_info) that could overlap, so it's slightly below a 5.

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 implies this is for retrieving arrangement points but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like pattern_info or pattern_set_arrangement. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but minimal; it doesn't say 'use this to view, not modify' or mention any preconditions (e.g., avatar loaded).

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