list_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses 'read-only' and 'Credits: 0' (cost), states results are metadata only, and specifies ordering and pagination. It omits details like page-size caps or what happens at the end of the result set.

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 short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the core fact (what is listed, ordering, pagination, cost) comes first and the status enum is separated as a reference block. Efficient, though slightly telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers cost, safety, ordering, pagination and the status filter. A note about result size limits or linkage to a project would complete it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the valid status values, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about limit, offset, or project_id semantics beyond their obvious names.

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 ('Content articles of a project') plus scope qualifiers ('metadata only', 'newest first, paginated') that make the operation unambiguous. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no indication of when to use this vs alternatives like get_article, list_content_queries, or get_content_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The status values hint at filtering but do not constitute usage guidance.

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