fusion_list_pods

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the pod directory structure, the presence of config.yaml and an .env credentials file, the active-pod concept, and the specific behavior when no pods/ directory exists. This goes well beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add only high-value context about pod structure, session flow, and the no-pods edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and a rich output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call this tool correctly: why to call it, when to call it, what it returns, and how to interpret an empty listing. No important operational context is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively complete. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('list' and 'Fusion pods'), and clearly states the tool's output: which pods the server can talk to and which one is active. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fusion_use_pod because it explicitly frames listing as the precursor to a session-binding action.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this at the start of a session, then fusion_use_pod to bind the session to one pod.' It also covers the single-config mode edge case, telling the agent when this tool will list nothing, which prevents misinterpretation of an empty result.

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