List XGR standard examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects (likely read-only), required permissions, rate limits, or return format. The agent cannot infer behavior beyond a basic list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the purpose and usage context.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain what 'example artifacts' are, how results are structured, or how they relate to sibling tools like get_xgr_standard_example. The agent lacks critical context for effective use.

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 description should compensate. It adds meaning by mentioning two standards but contradicts the schema's enum which includes four values. This inconsistency reduces clarity and could cause incorrect parameter selection.

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 clearly states the tool lists available example artifacts for specific standards. However, it only mentions two of the four enum values (XRC-137, XRC-729) while the schema includes xdala-authoring and xgr-multibundle, which could mislead an agent about the full 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?

The description provides a direct usage instruction ('Use this to list...'), implying when to invoke the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., get_xgr_standard_example to retrieve a specific example after listing).

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