list_cookbook_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists all examples, the optional language filter, and the empty-default behavior. It does not detail output format or potential pagination, but an output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with the purpose, then a short usage line, then parametrized arg documentation. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. No critical information 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?

The schema only has 'language' with a default. The description enriches this by listing valid values ('python', 'go', 'typescript', 'javascript') and explaining that empty means 'list all.' This fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 'List all AT Protocol cookbook examples (starter projects and scripts)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from get_cookbook_example by mentioning listing vs fetching specific examples.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this to discover available example projects before fetching specific ones with get_cookbook_example,' naming the alternative. Also specifies how to use the language filter and the default behavior.

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