List Faces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining what faces are (visual representations attached to templates), which provides context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail pagination behavior or response format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying definition of faces. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (list operation), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format, pagination structure), leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'next') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('face definitions'), specifies what faces are ('visual representations attached to templates'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_face' (singular retrieval) and 'dual_create_face' (creation). It provides specific scope and differentiation.

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 usage for listing face definitions, with clear context from the tool name and sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_get_template_faces' or 'dual_get_face', or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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