list_scales

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates this is a read operation returning data, but it does not mention any constraints (e.g., rate limits, caching, or if the list is static). The behavior is straightforward, but additional context (e.g., 'returns a list without side effects') would improve transparency.

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 is a single, concise sentence that states the action and result. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Return all 8 typographic scales' and essential details. No superfluous words.

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 and an output schema exists, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could mention that the output schema provides structured data, but that is implied by 'return'. The tool is simple, and the description covers its main function.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed since the schema has no parameters. The description covers the tool's output scope.

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 it returns all 8 typographic scales with ratios and use-case recommendations. It specifies the exact number and contents, and the name 'list_scales' along with the siblings (e.g., list_pairings, search_fonts) implies this is the dedicated tool for scales, distinguishing it effectively.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pairings or generate_typography_system. The purpose is implied by the name, but the description could benefit from stating that this is for predefined scales, not custom or paired ones.

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