list-supported-crs

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 merely states the listing action but does not mention return format, potential errors, or whether the operation is read-only (though that is implied). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose.

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, short sentence that is immediately understandable. It wastes no words and is well-structured, with the key action and object front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, but it does not specify the structure of the returned list (e.g., array of codes, names, or objects), which would be helpful for an agent to correctly parse the output. It is adequate for a basic list tool but leaves a minor gap.

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, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist, and the schema correctly reflects an empty object.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all supported coordinate systems.' While it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'transform-coordinates', the purpose is unambiguous and distinct in intent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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