list_robot_mowers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (list and filter) and mentions sort/filter options, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, read-only status, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-operation that ostensibly returns a list of mowers, this is minimal disclosure; an agent must infer safety and output structure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List and filter') followed by an enumeration of filter and sort options. It contains no fluff, tautology, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities but leaves out return format (list of objects? fields?), pagination (though limit is in schema), and any behavioral nuances. For a list/filter tool, it is adequate but lacks explicit details about what the result looks like or any constraints like 'returns up to limit results.' Given complexity, it could be richer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concise summary of filter and sort capabilities (e.g., 'brand, navigation type, price, lawn coverage, slope handling and minimum score') that aligns with the parameters but does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema. It fails to clarify the 'value' sort option (price_per_m2) beyond what the schema already states, so no significant added value.

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's purpose: 'List and filter robot lawn mowers from the BestRobotMower.co dataset.' This is a specific verb (list/filter) plus a resource (robot lawn mowers) and a dataset source. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_robot_mower (retrieves a single mower) and compare_robot_mowers (compares), as listing is a distinct operation. No ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is for browsing/filtering the dataset, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the sibling tools. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative naming. The context is clear enough that an agent would infer this is the right tool for listing/filtering, but it lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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