list_attributes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is an introspective lookup and implies a read-only nature, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe pagination/size behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences carry both purpose and usage guidance with no filler. The directive 'Call this before guessing filter values' earns its place by making the use case actionable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool returns at a conceptual level and when to call it. A slight gap is the lack of any indication of the exact response shape, but the description's conceptual framing is sufficient for a metadata listing.

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 parameter documentation is irrelevant; the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds context by linking the output to filter values, which is all an agent needs here.

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 identifies the resource ('attributes this catalogue actually carries') and the operation (reporting what values they take), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_garments and search_garments. It goes beyond the tool name by adding the crucial 'actually carries' scope.

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?

'Call this before guessing filter values' is an explicit when-to-use directive that tells the agent to invoke this tool before constructing filters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unmistakable.

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