tool_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the two output modes and says a named unit returns 'every command with every field it takes.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the output structure, or clarify the unexplained reference to session_connect.

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 reasonably compact at two sentences, but the prose is dense and somewhat oblique. The illustrative examples and the session_connect reference add color but also clutter. It is not poorly structured, but it is not a model of clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes and gives enough information about the returned content for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is not a 5 because the awkward phrasing leaves some room for misinterpretation about what 'answers that one tool in full' means structurally.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional unit semantics by saying 'Without a unit' and 'name a unit,' but it does not add material meaning beyond what the schema already states about the parameter.

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 communicates that the tool lists store-specific custom tools and can return either all of them or one full tool definition. It differentiates these from engine tools by saying 'beyond the engine.' It is not a 5 because the wording is indirect and leans on examples rather than a direct statement like 'List custom tools available in this store.'

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 explicitly explains the two invocation modes: omit the unit to list all tools, or name a unit to get that tool's full definition. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to pass the optional parameter. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but for this tool the mode-based guidance is sufficient.

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