list_formats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the examples suggest a static enumeration, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, whether results are ordered or paginated, or whether it depends on any context (e.g., organization). This is adequate but minimal for a read-only list 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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then provides concrete examples that enrich understanding without extra verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has an output schema (present but not shown) and no parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It does not explain any context like filtering or scoping, but for a simple enumeration of format types this is likely complete. The examples reduce ambiguity about what constitutes a 'format type.'

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 schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns (event format types with examples), which goes beyond the empty schema. There are no parameter ambiguities to resolve.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('event format types') with concrete examples (Conference, Expo, Seminar, Networking). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_format (singular) and list_categories (different resource), so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_format, which retrieves a single format, but the description does not mention that relationship or any context such as 'use this to populate format dropdowns.' The agent is left to infer that this is the plural counterpart.

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