ScoutWyze FIPS: list covered products

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it partially does: "Free" discloses cost, "lists" implies a read-only enumeration, and the return contents are enumerated. It omits any statement about permissions/auth requirements, listing size, or pagination behavior for what could be a large catalog, so the safety profile is inferred rather than declared.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. Cost and scope come first, then the call-to-action routing to fips_lookup, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the record fields (vendor, product, aliases, versions). Combined with the explicit prerequisite relationship to fips_lookup, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies a single unfiltered enumeration with no filter arguments to explain.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) plus the resource (products and versions covered by ScoutWyze FIPS) and enumerates the fields returned: vendor, product, aliases, versions. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fips_lookup by positioning itself as the prerequisite discovery step.

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?

"Call this first to pick exact product and version names for fips_lookup" gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the alternative it feeds, which is unusually actionable. It does not mention the other siblings (fips_expiring, fips_batch) or any case where this call should be skipped, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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