currency_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. The word 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which offers basic transparency. However, it does not disclose what the returned list contains (e.g., codes, symbols, names) or any other behavioral details. This is minimally sufficient but lacks rich context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure immediately communicates both the action and the resource. There is no unnecessary elaboration.

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, no-output-schema list tool, this description is nearly complete: it tells the agent exactly what to expect (a list of supported currencies). The only minor gap is that it does not specify the format or structure of the returned list, but this is not critical for such a simple operation. The complexity is low, so the description is adequately complete.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly reflects the fact that no input is needed. No compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('currencies Homebox supports'). Among the sibling tools, which all target other resource types (items, locations, labels, users), this is unambiguous and clearly distinct. There is no tautology or vagueness.

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 implies usage whenever the agent needs the set of supported currencies, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given that no sibling targets currencies, this is acceptable but still relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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