List wall types and finishes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by enumerating the actual wall-type values (drywall, masonry, concrete) that will be returned, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or scope limits.

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 terse sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the resource being listed and followed by the concrete value domains. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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, the description need not explain return values, and for a zero-parameter read-only reference tool it is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing guidance against sibling list tools, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The bracketed field lists [id,name,t] and [key,label,color,tile] are field names rather than parameters, and the schema is fully described anyway.

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 two concrete resources it exposes — wall types (with field list and example values) and finish patterns (with field list) — so an agent knows exactly what dataset this returns. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling listing tools such as library, catalog, or rules.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (library, catalog, edit_walls). There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no stated context — the agent must infer that this is a reference-data lookup.

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