List Bracelet Materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying that counts are specific to the bracelet catalog and exclude other item types. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks parameter explanations and does not define what constitutes a 'material' or how counts are derived. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation for limit, query, or cursor. This is a critical gap as the agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description alone.

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 normalized materials and SKU counts from the bracelet catalog, identifying the verb (list), resource (materials, SKU counts), and scope (bracelet catalog). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crystal_search_products which search for products.

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 clarifies that counts do not cover loose beads, components, or raw crystals, implying it should be used for bracelet materials only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions for other contexts.

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