List attributes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or handling of invalid types. While simple, there is no extra transparency beyond what annotations supply, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. The core action and type scope are front-loaded, and the list of valid types is directly useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only list with an output schema present, but it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not explain the port parameter. These are notable gaps given the tool's low schema coverage and multiple competing list tools.

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 must compensate. It provides concrete allowed values for the required attribute_type parameter (Layer, BuildingMaterial, Composite, Surface, Profile, ZoneCategory), adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the optional port parameter, leaving a partial gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('attribute names') and specifies the exact scope ('by type') with enumerated types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instances and list_rules, so an agent can immediately identify its function.

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 usage by listing attribute types and the required parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like query_elements or get_element_data. There is no exclusions or alternative routing, making usage guidance only implicit.

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