afl_content_text_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format but does not mention behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what happens with empty results. Partial but incomplete transparency.

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 description is extremely concise, no wasted words, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides basic purpose and return structure but lacks guidance on using filters (e.g., tagExpression vs tagNames) and pagination parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the description only vaguely mentions 'reference/tag filters', which maps to some parameters but does not explain individual parameters like page, sort, limit, or expressions. The return structure is detailed but parameter semantics are lacking.

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 clearly states the tool lists text articles (news) with optional filtering by reference or tag, and distinguishes itself from siblings like afl_content_text_get by focusing on listing. The return structure and example further clarify the purpose.

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 implies usage for listing news articles with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like afl_content_text_get (single article) or search-oriented tools. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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