list_garments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing that records are compact (not full details) and that the result set is paginated via limit/offset. It does not mention other behavioral aspects like ordering or error handling, but for a read-only list operation these are less critical.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second differentiates from get_garmenteb, and the third explains pagination. No redundant or vague content, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 description covers the essential aspects for using the tool: what it lists, that it is filterable, that the response is compact, and how pagination works. The schema fills in parameter details scrape. The only noticeable gap is not explaining when to prefer search_garments over this tool, and the output schema is absent so the exact shape of 'compact records' is unspecified, but the pointer to get_garment mitigates this.

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 schema already describes four parameters (colour, season, category, attributes) with examples, but limit and offset lack descriptions. The description compensates by explicitly identifying limit/offset as pagination controls, and it also confirms that filtering is optional without repeating the schema details. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('garments in the wardrobe') and notes optional filtering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_garment by stating that list_garments returns compact records, which allows an agent to select the correct tool immediately.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'use get_garment for full detail', giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not address the search_garments sibling, which could be an alternative for more complex queries, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over search_garments.

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