romm_api_list

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

Annotations already grant readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact — that results are cursor-paginated via next_offset — which is real added value beyond the annotations, but it discloses nothing about result size, rate limits or what 'switches' contains.

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?

Eleven words in two sentences, with the discovery purpose front-loaded before the pagination note. Nothing is padded, though the terseness shades into cryptic rather than efficient at points.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The gap is input-side: five undocumented filter/pagination parameters with 0% schema coverage and no compensating prose leaves an agent unable to use the catalog's filters correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters (tag, limit, query, method, offset), so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing. It never mentions filtering by tag, query, method or paging via limit/offset, leaving the agent to guess the filter semantics from bare property names.

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 names the resource (HTTP operations) and what it surfaces (required scopes, switches), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. However, 'switches' is undefined jargon, and it draws no line against close siblings romm_api_describe and romm_api_read, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the trio to pick.

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?

'Follow next_offset' is a pagination instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus romm_api_describe or romm_api_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the discovery-vs-inspection split from the name.

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