bar_list_glasses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but adds nothing about behavior. It doesn't say this is a read-only enumeration, whether results are paginated, cached, or how large the list might be. An output schema exists, which relieves some burden on return shape, but the description contributes nothing behavioral.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb. No waste, though it also could not be shorter without losing meaning.

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 simple zero-param list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It doesn't need to explain return values, but it also adds no routing or behavioral context to help an agent preferring this over related list/search tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing to document and the description correctly implies no filtering arguments.

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 clear verb (list) and resource (glass types), matching the pattern of sibling list tools like bar_list_ingredients and bar_list_methods. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings beyond the resource name, but the resource is specific enough.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no context about when an agent should enumerate glass types versus looking one up. Pure statement of purpose.

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