Browse curated Micros

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by clarifying that the listing requires no authentication and no linked project, and that the snapshots are reviewed, licensed, and immutable.

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 sentence carries the verb, the resource type, key qualifiers, and access preconditions without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place and the most important action verb is front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, an output schema, and a one-sentence description that covers both data scope and access requirements, the agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. No meaningful context is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema imposes no semantic burden on the description. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; there is nothing more the description needs to clarify.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('reviewed, licensed immutable Micro source snapshots'), making the operation unmistakable. It also states two boundary conditions, 'without authentication or a linked project,' which helps distinguish this from sibling tools that operate on authenticated or project-scoped resources.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: browsing curated public snapshots without needing auth or a project link. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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