list_parsers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or requires authentication. The mention of 'with details' hints at output richness but lacks specifics on format or constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important even for simple tools. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on expected behavior would improve 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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, as it's unnecessary for a parameterless tool. This aligns with the baseline expectation for such cases, providing no extraneous details.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all available parsers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_parser_info' by implying a comprehensive listing rather than specific details, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by specifying 'with details' beyond just the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_parser_info' or the various search tools. The description implies usage for obtaining a full list of parsers, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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