list_bars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool lists bars and retrieves IDs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes metadata like bar names or statuses. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a read operation or adding brief context, but it's still highly concise.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what 'IDs' entail or how results are structured would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none are required. This aligns with the schema, so it earns a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or omissions.

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 clearly states the action ('List all bars') and the resource ('bars'), specifying that it retrieves bars the user has access to along with their IDs. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'search_ingredients' or 'get_shelf_ingredients', which might also list resources but with different scopes or filters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as authentication or context needed, nor does it specify if this is for initial setup, inventory checks, or other scenarios. Without such context, the agent might misuse it or overlook better-suited tools.

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