list_pending_hard_drive_choices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data is 'stored in the save' and includes 'rerolls left', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool only reads data, how it handles missing save/world parameters, or any side effects. The description is more of a data definition than a behavioral specification.

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 concise sentence of about ten words, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the key term 'pending hard-drive choices'. However, it is arguably too terse and could devote a few more words to clarifying the action or return type without losing conciseness.

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 tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is still incomplete. It does not state what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of choices with reroll counts), what 'pending' means in this context, or how the optional parameters affect results. Sibling tools and naming suggest a listing operation, but the agent would need additional inference.

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 schema has two parameters, 'save' and 'world', with zero description coverage. The description only references 'save' (via 'stored in the save') but does not explain the role of 'world' or how either parameter should be used. Since the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, it adds minimal semantic value.

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 identifies the resource as pending hard-drive choices stored in the save, with rerolls left. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'list_' provides the action, and the description adds specific scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'advise_hard_drive_pick'.

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 such as 'advise_hard_drive_pick' or 'compare_recipe_options'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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