list_all_zims

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns JSON with details, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error scenarios. For a read-only list, this minimal disclosure is slightly lacking.

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 consists of two clear sentences with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the main action and scope, and every sentence contributes value.

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 (listing all ZIMs with details) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention typical fields returned or any limitations (e.g., no pagination, no filtering). For a basic list, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the high coverage yields a baseline of 4. No additional value is needed or missing.

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') and resource ('ZIM files') and clearly states the scope ('currently loaded in your Kiwix instance'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_content or search_zim which operate on content within ZIMs.

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 implies usage for getting an overview of available ZIMs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. There are no exclusions or context boundaries stated.

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