airstrings_strings_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it reads local files rather than the API and therefore reflects unpushed edits, which materially affects how an agent interprets the results.

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 tight sentences, zero waste. The behavioral distinction (local files, not API) is front-loaded before the routing advice, so the most important disambiguation comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the exact returned fields and the local vs. server data source. Combined with complete param coverage and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100% and the single optional 'section' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including omit-to-list-all behavior. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (strings in local workspace CSVs) and enumerates the returned fields (key, section, format, value per locale). It also draws the boundary against sibling tools by clarifying it reads files only, never the API, so an agent can distinguish it from server-side reads.

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?

Explicitly states the use context ('shows unpushed edits') and routes to the alternative: 'run airstrings_pull first to see what the server currently holds.' The condition selecting this tool vs. airstrings_pull is unambiguous.

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