clm_list_equipment

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and idempotent, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema: the result is organized into bookable and non-bookable groups, and 'all site equipment' indicates full-scope listing. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering, but an output schema exists and the complexity is low.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the grouping behavior is front-loaded immediately after the verb and resource. Every phrase 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 the simple optional-parameter shape, readOnly/idempotent annotations, rich output schema, and a precise one-sentence description, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly. No critical operational details like required auth or destructive side effects are 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 only parameter (site_id) is already fully described in the schema, including its default and behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('site equipment'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('split into bookable and non-bookable groups') plus a UI purpose ('equipment management grid view'). This clearly separates it from siblings like clm_list_equipment_timeline and the many equipment mutation commands.

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?

It gives a concrete context ('equipment management grid view') that tells an agent when this listing tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the grid-view framing is enough to route selection among the long sibling list.

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