list_philosophers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes two modes of operation (era summaries vs listing philosophers) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, idempotency, or rate limits. For a read-only browse tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key numbers (54 philosophers, 5 eras), no waste. Every part 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 no output schema, the description could have elaborated on return values or structure (e.g., what fields appear in era summaries). It covers basic functionality but leaves room for ambiguity about the format of output.

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 100% and the description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'era summaries' when called without arguments, which aligns with the optional enum parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no new parameter-specific details.

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 'Browse 54 philosophers across 5 eras' and distinguishes two use modes: without arguments yields era summaries, with an era lists philosophers in that era. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools which have unrelated purposes.

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 explains when to call without arguments vs with an era argument. While it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, the sibling tools are dissimilar and context makes usage clear.

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