list_tutorials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that results are tutorial starting points and feature examples, but says nothing about result format, result count, or the effect of the limit parameter.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the secondary use case in a compact parenthetical.

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 read-only, zero-required-param discovery tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is adequate but thin: return shape, result count, and the role of limit are never addressed, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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 coverage is 67%; query and contains are already documented in the schema (query: words in path/solver; contains: regex inside files). The description's parenthetical loosely maps to the contains mode but adds little beyond the schema, and the undocumented limit parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find OpenFOAM tutorial cases', plus a secondary scope ('working examples of any keyword or feature'). The resource ('tutorial cases') is inherently distinct from sibling tools like list_cases or foam_reference, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'to start from' (bootstrap a new case) and 'working examples of any keyword or feature' (look up a feature in real files). However, it names no alternative tools (e.g., list_cases, foam_reference) and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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