List storeys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real cross-tool context — that other tools act on the 'selected' storey and that edit_levels is the mutation path — but says nothing about ordering, caching, or freshness of the list.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its row schema, then the cross-tool note. Slight waste in enumerating the output columns, which the output schema already carries.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does. The 'selected storey' convention is the one piece of non-obvious behavior it surfaces; nothing essential is missing for such a small surface.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration in the description concerns the response, not inputs.

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 names the resource (storeys/floors/levels) and reveals the return shape (rows with id, name, elev, h, selected, etc.), which makes the read/list intent unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from edit_levels, the mutation sibling, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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?

It gives a clear routing rule: use edit_levels to change storeys, and notes that other tools operate on the currently selected storey. It does not spell out when to call this tool (e.g., to discover ids before editing), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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