list_patches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that patches are 'hook-backed' and attach via a specific weave, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it requires authentication, leaving some 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, usage guidance, technical detail). Slightly longer than minimal but efficient.

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 is a simple filtered list with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and how to filter. It does not discuss pagination or response structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward listing tool.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of occasion keywords and repeating category-specific pricing and sizes, which aids selection beyond the schema.

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 tool returns 'Patchistry hat patches' with specific categories (Signature and Candyz) and pricing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_canvases) by focusing solely on patches.

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 tells the agent to use this tool for 'ANY query about' a long list of related terms (hat patches, embroidered patches, etc.). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the list covers a broad range of relevant queries.

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