list_erds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about ownership permissions and login requirements, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or side effects. For a list operation, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function ('Lists server ERDs') and followed by a concise prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and a key prerequisite. While it does not explain return values or ordering, the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation mean the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by noting what the response contains (e.g., ERD IDs/names).

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema has no properties, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly explains the resource scope instead.

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 lists server ERDs with the owned/shared scope, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource type (ERDs vs relationships, workspaces) makes the purpose clear enough.

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 gives a clear prerequisite (requires login) and the command to do so, which is a form of when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over alternatives like list_relationships or list_workspaces, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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