stepcode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what the 'full contract' includes (intro, per-step content, divergence notes, cross-tool links, grounding), but does not go beyond that to disclose rate limits, error behavior, or other operational traits.

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 compact sentence front-loads the primary action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the returned content. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 only one required parameter, a fully documented schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: obtain a slug from list/search, then fetch the full page. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the slug parameter already includes a concrete example. The description reinforces that the slug identifies one page and originates from sibling tools, but 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the full howto/v2 contract for one page by slug'), and clearly distinguishes this single-page retrieval tool from the sibling list/search tools by naming them as sources of the slug. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it returns.

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?

It explicitly says the slug comes from list_howto_pages / search_howto_pages, which tells the agent when to use this tool: after finding a page via the sibling tools. It does not state explicit when-not conditions for sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for this simple one-parameter tool.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying what the listing includes (tools shown and page counts), which goes beyond the structured 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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes clarifying examples, and summarizes the output. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list operation with a read-only annotation and an output schema present, the description provides enough context. It covers what is listed, where it is from, and what is included in the result.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The schema fully covers this case, and the description contributes relevant detail about what the result set represents.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('analysis families on stepcode.dev'), provides concrete examples, and clarifies the output includes associated tools and page counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on howto pages.

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 makes the tool's scope obvious but does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage is implied through the resource type and examples, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope: only published pages, all 36 analysis x tool cells, and the divergence flag. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the fixed small set and zero parameters make those less critical.

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 dense sentence leads with the verb and resource, then packs the scope and returned fields into a well-organized em-dash clause. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 no parameters, an output schema available, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides the remaining essential context: exactly what the listing contains and its scope. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'List every published how-to page on stepcode.dev.' It then enumerates the exact fields returned, making it clearly distinct from get_howto_page (single page) and search_howto_pages (filtered lookup).

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 clearly implies this is for full enumeration of all how-to pages, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over search_howto_pages or get_howto_page. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: case-insensitive substring matching, AND-combination of filters, optional filters, and the equivalence to list_howto_pages when called with no arguments. This is useful operational context not present in the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary filtering behavior is stated first, followed by the important AND-combination semantics and the no-argument behavior. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (four optional parameters, zero required), the description is complete: it explains filter combination, optionality, case-insensitivity, and the degenerate no-argument case. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, so no major context is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description confirms the query behavior (case-insensitive substring against title + analysis name) but does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Filter the how-to index') and names the four filtering dimensions: analysis family, tool, vertical, and text query. It clearly distinguishes this from list_howto_pages by noting that no-argument calls return every page, while also framing itself as the filtering entry point.

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 gives clear usage context: all filters are optional, combine with AND, and the no-argument behavior matches list_howto_pages. It does not explicitly enumerate when NOT to use this tool or direct the agent to a sibling for unfiltered listing, but the 'same as list_howto_pages' note provides a useful comparison.

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