list_luts

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

Without annotations, the description covers scanning behavior, source directories, file types (PNG/TIFF), and grouping logic. It does not address edge cases (e.g., missing directory, no files found) or permissions, but the core behavior is well described.

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 concise, starting with the main purpose, then detailing the scanning process, and ending with a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the scanning and grouping logic, and parameter usage. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, it could mention that results are grouped by category (which it does) and perhaps the format (list of paths) but that is minor.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: directory as an optional override and category as an optional filter. It provides context beyond the schema's type definitions, making the tool easy to use.

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 it lists HaldCLUT film simulation LUT files, specifies the scanning source (RT_HALDCLUT_DIR or optional directory), and groups by category. It is distinct from sibling tools like apply_lut or preview_lut which apply or preview specific LUTs.

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 indicates it is used to list available LUT files and optionally filter by category or override directory. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would understand when to use it for listing vs applying a LUT.

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