list_baselines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists data and allows optional filtering, but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it's read-only (implied by 'list'), what format the output is (e.g., JSON array, paginated), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it's a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and key usage detail (optional filtering) without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral traits. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'sensorType' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning example values ('AP1100', 'AP3000') and clarifying that omission lists all builds, but this is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List available builds and profiles from baselines.json' specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('builds and profiles from baselines.json'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_builds' or 'list_test_runs' by focusing on baselines data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides implied usage guidance: it mentions optional filtering by sensor type (e.g., 'AP1100', 'AP3000'), which suggests when to use the parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'list_test_runs' or other list tools) and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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