list_dimensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation. For a zero-parameter listing tool the risk is low and the output schema covers return shape, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the resource identification.

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 parameterless, non-destructive listing tool with a declared output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it retrieves and the schema covers the return format. Only the lack of any usage or read-only context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. Schema description coverage is also 100%, so structured data is not lacking.

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 a specific resource ("dimension annotations on the board"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the many other list_* siblings that target footprints, zones, tracks, or text. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with neighbors like list_text or list_groups, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 call this versus the other list_* tools, no prerequisites (e.g. an open board), and no indication of when it is not appropriate. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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