list_consoles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'active', implying an implicit filter on returned systems, and says nothing about the return shape, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 short fragment with no wasted words, but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; nothing is front-loaded because there is no verb to lead with.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description does the minimum: it names the resource and notes the 'active' filter. It omits any statement of the action performed and any hint at what the returned IDs represent or how to use them, leaving the agent to infer the operation.

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 the schema imposes no semantic load and the baseline for this dimension is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or supplements the empty 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?

The fragment identifies the resource and its scope ('IDs of the active RetroAchievements game systems'), and usefully maps 'consoles' to game systems, but it supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a list/retrieve operation from the name alone. It is understandable but not stated as a specific 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The sibling tools are mostly user/game/achievement oriented, so overlap is low, but the description does nothing to help the agent decide when to call it.

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