List Signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: signals have descriptors, are readable via get_signal, and block names from XML are not readable, framing the output as a schema-content hint. This goes beyond the empty input schema and clarifies what the listed items represent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary semantic distinction between signals and block names.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, how signals are identified, and why block names appear. It could be slightly more explicit about output format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema already covers parameter semantics fully.

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 outputs readable project signals and block names separately, using a specific verb ('Вывести') and a concrete resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools by focusing on both signals and block names, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_blocks.

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 implies when the tool is useful by explaining that signals are readable via get_signal and that block names cannot be read directly from XML, making this tool a source for those block-name hints. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_signals over alternatives such as list_blocks or get_signal.

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