List study sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so read-only safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the scope (sets created for this learner), the newest-first ordering, and that each set carries a progress summary showing whether it was opened. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by adding the two primary use cases. Nothing extraneous.

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, read-only/open-world annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. It covers purpose, scope, ordering, and use cases well. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly route users to the get_study_set/get_set_results siblings for more detail, and it omits pagination specifics — both minor for a list 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 100%, so all four parameters (limit, topic, userId, includeProgress) are already well-documented in the schema itself. Under the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (list), resource (study sets), scope (created for this learner), ordering (newest first), and content (progress summary per set). It also frames concrete use cases — finding a setId and spotting never-opened sets — which make its purpose unmistakable and distinct from the singular get_study_set and get_set_results siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it to find a setId, or to see at a glance which sets were never opened'). However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to get_set_results for detailed results, so it falls short of a 5.

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