list_board_shapes

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. The description only states the action ('List') without revealing traits like read-only nature, deterministic output, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer behavior beyond a simple listing operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could potentially add more context about the output, but for its length, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the return format or confirm that it returns a list of shape objects. While the output schema fills some gaps, the description could be more informative about what constitutes a 'graphic shape' and the nature of the list.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The examples of shapes add slight value beyond the schema. With no parameters, a baseline of 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 tool lists graphic shapes with examples like 'segments, arcs, rects, etc.', which distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that list other entities (e.g., list_pads, list_tracks). The verb 'List' combined with the specific resource 'graphic shapes' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 48 sibling list_* tools, the agent receives no context on when list_board_shapes is appropriate over list_board_text or list_components. No exclusions or conditional usage are mentioned.

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