shelf_list_kits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: no pagination behavior, no note that results are workspace-scoped, no indication of what filtering is supported.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. Two words cannot carry the informational load of a six-parameter listing tool.

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 tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and workspace scoping, the description is far too thin. An agent knows it lists kits but not what filters exist, what the results look like, or how paging behaves.

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?

Three of six parameters (search, status, myCustody) have no schema description and the description supplies nothing to fill the gap. Even the documented parameters (page, orgId, perPage) get no additional meaning from the description text.

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 names a verb (search/list) and a resource (kits), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from shelf_get_kit or shelf_create_kit, and the merged 'search/list' phrasing leaves the scope ambiguous (is it a fuzzy search, a paginated browse, or both?).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shelf_get_kit for a single kit or shelf_list_assets for other resource types. At best, 'list' weakly implies bulk browsing, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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