get_arrangement_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only retrieval ('Get') and scopes the result to arrangement points on the avatar, but it does not state whether there are side effects, how the list is ordered, or what information each point contains. Basic transparency, but not complete.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded and every word contributes. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and a near-identically named sibling (get_arrangement_points) exists. The description states the return type ('list') and scope ('on the avatar'), which is enough for a basic call, but it lacks disambiguation and any detail about the returned data structure.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific object ('list of arrangement points on the avatar'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate the tool from the sibling get_arrangement_points, which appears to describe the same concept, so it falls short of a 5.

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 get_arrangement_points or any other sibling. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent is left without selection guidance.

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