list_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the field list hints at the response shape, but there is nothing about permissions, side effects, pagination, or whether the custom file is read or written. It covers the basics but leaves real behavioral gaps.

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?

The lead sentence front-loads purpose and returned fields, then a compact Args block covers the three parameters. No filler; 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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values in depth, and the three parameters are each addressed despite 0% schema coverage. The main gap is the absence of any behavioral/permission context, which is a modest shortfall for a simple listing tool.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates the allowed category values, explains that language selects a version or 'all' for all three, and documents the questions_file default resolution via SBW_QUESTIONS or the built-in bank. Only minor format details are missing.

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 ('Show') and resource ('the question bank') and enumerates the returned fields (id, category, difficulty, question text, reference answer). It is clearly distinguishable from the run-management siblings, though it never explicitly frames itself against any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the parameter semantics (inspect the bank, optionally filtered by category/language), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus other means of inspecting questions. Adequate minimum-viable guidance, no exclusions or alternatives.

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