get_picklist_options

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 clearly labels the operation as 'Read' (implying no side effects) and discloses the output format as a flat list of value/label pairs. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss error handling, permissions, or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output format concisely. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or clutter.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ('flat [{ value, label }] list'). All three parameters are documented in the schema with mutual exclusivity described. For a simple read tool, the description and schema together provide sufficient context without needing to describe error conditions or edge cases.

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 each parameter having a detailed description including mutual exclusivity notes. The tool description itself adds no additional information about parameters, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents them. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('options of a Local or Global OptionSet') and the output shape ('flat [{ value, label }] list'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_picklist_option, update_picklist_option, and delete_picklist_option, which are write operations.

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 clearly indicates this is the read operation for picklist options, which implies usage for retrieving options rather than modifying them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use' scenarios, leaving some implicit guidance. The sibling names fill that gap, but the description itself could be more explicit.

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