list_equipment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return format ('comma-separated list') and scope ('all available ... in the database'), which is helpful. It does not mention ordering, empty results, or dynamic/cached behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 compact and well structured: one sentence states the core purpose, and a second sentence describes the return format and intended use. Every word earns its place, and the most important information 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what is returned, in what format, and for what purpose. It is missing only a small amount of contextual guidance about sibling tools, but nothing essential is needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain at the parameter level. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool, and the note about filtering adds useful context about why the returned values matter.

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 states a clear action and resource: retrieve all equipment types in the database. It is not a tautology and clearly identifies the subject matter, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like list_body_parts or list_target_muscles beyond the resource name.

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 phrase 'can be used for filtering' provides implied usage context: an agent should call this when it needs equipment filter options. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related siblings such as get_exercises_by_equipment, and no alternative tools are named.

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