list_exercises

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'brief' but fails to describe pagination, ordering, side effects, or other key behavior like whether results are filtered by default or if all filters are optional.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose. It efficiently lists filter categories. However, it could benefit from clearer formatting or distinct sections for each filter.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, no output schema details are provided in the input, and the description is too brief to fully equip an agent. Key details like 'brief' meaning, default limit behavior, and whether results are sorted are missing.

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%, yet the description only lists filter names without explaining their types, formats, or expected values. For example, 'topic substring' is ambiguous: it does not specify if it's case-sensitive or supports wildcards. No examples are given.

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 exercises and enumerates the available filters (scheda, topic, type, section, status). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_toc or get_exercise, which are distinct in 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over siblings.

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