list_os_by_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand 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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases, performance). The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but more context on usage would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'family' parameter with examples ('ubuntu', 'centos', 'windows', 'application'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying what values are expected. However, it doesn't detail constraints like case sensitivity or valid enum values.

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 operating systems by family.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('operating systems'), and the 'by family' qualifier adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_operating_systems' or 'list_linux_os', which might offer broader or alternative listings.

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. It mentions the 'family' parameter but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_operating_systems' or 'search_os_by_name'. Usage is implied through the parameter description but not explicitly stated.

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