bak_isos_by_kanton

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about the return format (JSON with specific fields) and sorting by name. It also implies the tool fetches from a fixed inventory, which aligns with the open-world hint. No contradictions with 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?

The description is extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a structured Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is well-organized and easy to scan.

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's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input parameters with defaults, return format with field details, and behavioral hints from annotations. The presence of an output schema in the background further supports completeness.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (kanton and limit) with format and constraints. The tool description replicates this information without adding significant new meaning. Since schema coverage is good, the description's contribution is minimal, earning a baseline score.

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 all ISOS sites of a Swiss canton, using a specific verb ('Listet') and resource ('ISOS-Ortsbilder'). The title from annotations reinforces this. Sibling tools like bak_search_isos and bak_isos_by_kategorie differentiate by functionality, making 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 clear context for when to use: to list all ISOS sites filtered by canton. It mentions the required canton format and limit constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply other search/filter options.

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