os_list_os_by_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the return type ('List of operating systems') but discloses nothing about side effects, potential errors, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation (which 'List' implies but does not state). It adds little beyond restating the tool's name and provides no behavioral insights that would help an agent anticipate outcomes.

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 appropriately brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every element serves a function, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps parameter details concise.

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 tool with a single parameter and a simple list return, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter example, and return type. However, it lacks context on how this tool fits with the many sibling OS tools, and it does not clarify potential edge cases (e.g., what happens with an invalid family value). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return format), the description is minimally adequate but could be more helpful.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'family' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by offering examples ('ubuntu', 'centos', 'windows', 'application'), which gives the agent a sense of valid values. However, the list is not exhaustive and the description does not explain what families are available or how to discover them. This is partial compensation for the 0% schema coverage, earning a 3.

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 action ('List') and resource ('operating systems') with a qualifier ('by family'). It is specific and understandable, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like os_list_linux_os or os_list_windows_os, which also list operating systems by category. This is a clear purpose without explicit sibling 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would select this tool over os_list_operating_systems, os_list_linux_os, etc. The only context is the family parameter examples, but there is no explanation of when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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