list_gearboxes

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

The description states 'Cached 7 days,' which discloses a notable behavioral trait (caching duration). However, with no annotations provided, it does not address other aspects like idempotency, authorization, or rate limits. The caching info adds value, but more context would improve transparency.

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 two sentences and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: defining the action, the scope, and a key behavioral trait. It is efficiently 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?

For a simple list tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and a behavioral note (caching). However, it omits details about the return format, pagination, or whether the list includes all gearboxes or only in common 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?

The tool description mentions 'for a category,' aligning with the single parameter category_id. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter has its own description), the tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond restating the param's role. No details on value range or formatting are provided.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('gearboxes') with a scope ('for a category'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling list tools like list_colors or list_fuel_types by specifying the entity type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_colors or raw_search). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, relying solely on the tool name to imply its use case.

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