fabric_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. It states the tool returns fabrics in the object browser, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns full fabric data or just names, or whether it reflects unsaved changes. The behavior is minimally described but lacks depth.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource name. However, it could be slightly more informative by adding a verb or a hint about the return format, but for a zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately concise.

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, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what it returns and the scope. However, it does not mention whether the result is a list of names or full fabric objects, and it does not clarify the difference from fabric_library. Given the sibling context, a bit more detail would help.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context by scoping the result to the project's object browser, which is useful. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain 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 'Fabrics currently in the project's object browser.' states a clear resource (fabrics) and a scoping context (project's object browser), but it does not use a verb like 'list' or 'get'. It is distinguishable from fabric_library (which likely lists library fabrics) and fabric_apply, but the lack of an explicit action verb makes it slightly vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fabric_library or fabric_apply. The description implies it is for viewing fabrics in the current project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over fabric_library or other fabric tools.

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