Corpus List Series

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the behavioral surface is small, and the description does add the useful semantic link that values correspond to the 'series' field in corpus_search — but it says nothing about whether the list is exhaustive, its size, or ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by how to use it; the examples earn their place by making the abstract term 'series' concrete. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a full clause, a minor structural weakness.

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 supplies the two things the schema cannot: what 'series' means in this corpus and how the result feeds into corpus_search filtering. Only the lack of any note on completeness/freshness of the list keeps it from a 5.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to compensate for, and it correctly does not waste space inventing argument semantics.

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 resource — the series/collections present in the corpus — and grounds it with three concrete examples ('One Radio Network', 'Ray Peat Newsletter', 'Ask the Herb Doctor'). The verb is carried by the tool name rather than the prose, and it is not explicitly distinguished from similar enumeration siblings like corpus_list_authors or corpus_list_doc_types, so it falls 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?

It gives clear actionable context by telling the agent that the returned values match the 'series' field in corpus_search results and are 'usable as a filter', which is exactly the downstream use case an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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