List formats

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

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds what the annotations cannot: the returned fields (keys, names, categories, and numeric parameters like bits, exponent, mantissa). Since no output schema exists, this return-shape disclosure carries real value.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is listed and what each entry contains. It could go further by noting the keys are the inputs other tools accept, but no critical information is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed and none is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all available floating-point and integer format presets') and scopes it to 'this converter'. It does not explicitly contrast with get_format_info, but the enumeration framing makes the difference reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the discovery step before convert_format or get_format_info. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of the sibling tools, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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