list_plays

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature ('List') and the exact returned data (classification and monologue counts). It does not mention ordering or the exact response shape, but those are minor for a no-argument listing tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and packs the output details without any filler or repetition. Every word adds information useful for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 parameterless list tool, the description states the essential return information sufficiently even without an output schema. It could add a bit more precision about the response format or ordering, but nothing required to make the call is missing.

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 no parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered and there is no parameter semantics to elaborate. The description's field list concerns the response rather than arguments, which is appropriate for a no-arg call.

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 a specific operation ('List'), a precise resource ('Shakespeare's plays'), and the output fields (classification and monologue counts). This clearly sets it apart from the monologue-scoped siblings and from get_play_summary, which implies a different granularity.

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 purpose implies when to use it—whenever a caller needs an overview of all plays rather than a specific monologue or scene—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No sibling is named, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool name and verb.

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