list_solution_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a sorted keyword list or a message if the program is unsupported, which is useful. However, it doesn't detail edge cases like what happens with invalid program strings, case-sensitivity, or the exact format of the return value. The return-behavior disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with an intro paragraph, an enumeration of covered programs, an Args section, and a returns statement. Each sentence earns its place — there's no filler or redundant content. The differentiation from sibling tools is front-loaded in the second paragraph.

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 single-parameter list tool, the description is quite complete: it enumerates valid inputs, differentiates from the sibling list_commands, and states the return behavior. An output schema exists, so return format is handled structurally. It's not the most complex tool, and the description covers the essential decision-making information an agent needs.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'program' parameter. It does so well: the Args section enumerates the six valid program values explicitly, giving the agent a precise enumerated set even though the schema itself lacks an enum. This substantially adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 is very specific: it lists keywords for SHELX solution programs, explicitly naming the tool's verb ('List') and resource (keywords for solution programs). It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_commands by stating it covers solution programs (shelxs, shelxd, shelxt, etc.) rather than SHELXL refinement.

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 explicitly contrasts with list_commands, stating 'Unlike list_commands (which covers SHELXL refinement), this covers the programs that find or phase a structure.' It also enumerates the exact supported programs (shelxs, shelxd, shelxd_mm, shelxt, shelxc, shelxe), giving the agent clear when-to-use guidance.

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