avatar_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the two categories of returned data (scene avatars and library .avt files), which is useful, but it does not describe the return format, whether the list is read-only, ordering, or any caveats. For a listing affordance this is a thin disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and covers both data sources without waste. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list 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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for explaining what the agent will receive back. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of names, object structure), which is a notable gap for a list tool whose entire purpose is to return data.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies; the description correctly needs no parameter elaboration.

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 what the tool lists: avatars in the scene and .avt files in the CLO asset library. It uses an implied verb (list) that matches the name, and the two data sources (scene + library) are clearly specified. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like avatar_load (loading) and avatar_measurements (measuring), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus avatar_load, avatar_measurements, or other scene-info tools. No conditions for use, no exclusions, and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name that this is an inventory/lookup tool.

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