list_customformat

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds only the HTTP method and endpoint, which is mild extra context. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 very short, consisting of a one-line purpose and the API path. It is not bloated, but the first sentence is near-redundant with the tool name, and the sparseness means it does little to educate the agent beyond the structured fields.

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 simple no-parameter read list, the description plus output schema may be nearly sufficient, but it fails to clarify that it returns all custom formats and does not distinguish itself from the by-ID getter. A sentence stating the listing scope would make it complete.

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?

With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to describe any inputs.

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 states 'Read CustomFormat' and includes the API path GET /api/v3/customformat, which identifies a read operation on the CustomFormat resource. However, it does not explicitly say it lists all custom formats, and it lacks any contrast with the sibling get_customformat_by_id, so the scope of the operation is left for the agent to infer from the name and path.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this list tool over get_customformat_by_id or list_customformat_schema, nor any indication of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent gets no hint about selection conditions.

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