list_glyphs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, explicitly excludes path data, and explains filter defaults. Does not mention ordering or pagination beyond limit, but for a list tool this is adequately transparent.

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?

Compact, front-loaded purpose, followed by return summary, exclusion note, and arg meanings. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, description states exact return fields and the one major behavioral caveat (no path data). Parameters are fully documented. Only minor omissions like ordering or error behavior, which are non-critical for a simple list endpoint.

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 0%, but description compensates fully by explaining category values including 'Empty = all' and limit semantics '0 = all' — meaning beyond the parameter names.

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?

Clear verb 'List' with resource 'glyphs in the open font' and scope 'with basic metadata'. Explicitly contrasts with get_glyph by excluding path data, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

States 'Does NOT include path data — use get_glyph() for full details,' explicitly routing when full glyph details are needed. Also explains category filter behavior, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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