list_supported_breeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output content ('breed slugs/names') and the scope constraint ('cats or dogs'), which is the core behavior of a lookup list, but says nothing about read-only semantics, exhaustiveness, or response format.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned and for which species, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around whether the list is exhaustive or static.

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%, but the single 'species' parameter has an enum so the schema already constrains valid values. The parenthetical '(cats or dogs)' restates the enum rather than adding format or behavior detail, so it adds little 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List breed slugs/names') and ties itself to the consumer tool 'lookup_ideal_weight', making its role clear against siblings like calculate_pet_calories. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'available for lookup_ideal_weight' implies the agent should call this to discover valid breed values before invoking that tool, giving useful implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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