list_part_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the list's composition (built-in plus user-added parts), which is genuine behavioral context. It does not state whether this requires a loaded board/project, pagination or ordering behavior, or what happens if the power budget has not been initialized. Adequate but not thorough for an annotation-free tool.

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 short and front-loaded: the list's scope comes first, then the single argument. The Args block is a mild formatting artifact but contains no filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed and how to filter. Missing only usage context and any note about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project or existing power budget loaded), which are minor for this complexity level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only a title and default for filter. The description compensates by defining the one parameter as an optional, case-insensitive substring match on part names, which is more than the schema offers. Only one parameter exists and it is fully characterized, so there is little left to document.

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 well-scoped resource (parts the power budget knows about, built-in and user-added). This distinguishes it from similarly-named siblings like analyze_power_budget and set_part_current, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The purpose is clear without needing to open the schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as set_part_current (to modify a part) or analyze_power_budget (to use the list in a calculation). The reader must infer that this is a discovery/inspection step. The 'built-in and user-added' clause hints at scope but does not route the agent.

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