mesh_list_stations

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the DHT-based realm auto-discovery, the 'never default all-zero realm' guarantee, and the default host. This goes well beyond the schema without contradicting any annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying useful information: purpose, discovery mechanism, filter modes, and default host. The motivational phrase about not hand-maintaining a list adds context without bloating the definition.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it covers discovery, calling mechanics, filters, and defaults. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe what the returned station data looks like or how errors/pagination are presented, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining 'near' as nearest-first great-circle distance, clarifying that continent/country/city are exact-match filters, and noting that omitting filters lists every known station.

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 is explicit: 'List macula stations' names the verb and resource, and 'hecate_stations.list_stations, the mesh's canonical station directory' distinguishes this from ad-hoc lists. It is clearly separated from sibling tools like mesh_list_realms or mesh_rooms.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is the canonical directory, so agents should use it instead of hand-maintaining station lists, and it explains filter modes and the default host. It does not explicitly name when not to use a sibling, but the 'canonical' framing supplies enough guidance.

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