get_gear_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns type names and primary keys, implying a read-only, safe operation. It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, or other side effects. Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, list retrieval), this is sufficiently transparent.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second explains the return value. Every sentence is earned.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list retrieval, the description is complete. It tells the user what they will get (type names and primary keys) and provides examples.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds value by specifying what is returned, which goes beyond the schema. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all available gear/equipment types', provides examples (Shoes, Bike, Golf Clubs, Other), and explains the return value (type names and primary keys). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_all_gear or get_gear_makes.

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 when creating gear ('returns... primary keys used when creating gear'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_gear or list_recent_activities. There is no direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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