List hints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the caching behavior with a specific 24h TTL and names the refresh sibling, plus reveals pagination meta (total/totalPages). For a read-only list operation there is no destructive behavior to disclose; the cache staleness caveat is the key trait and it is covered well.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words: the verb and resource are front-loaded, the return structure and filter follow immediately, and the cache caveat is appended last. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the returned fields and pagination metadata. It also covers cache staleness and where category values come from. Minor gaps remain — error conditions, empty-result behavior, and how totalPages terminates paging — but for a moderate-complexity listing tool this is near-complete.

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% — page, category, and per_page are all already described in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds marginal value by tying the category parameter to list_categories as the source of valid slugs, but beyond that it does not clarify syntax or formats beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List UX hints from uxhints.com') and explicitly enumerates the return fields (id, title, slug, link, date, categories), which sharply differentiates it from the sibling get_hint, search_hints, and random_hint tools. The filtering by category slug further distinguishes it.

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?

Gives clear context for the category filter by pointing to list_categories as the source of valid slugs, and explicitly routes cache-freshness concerns to refresh_hint_catalog. However, it stops short of stating when to prefer search_hints or get_hint over this listing tool, leaving some selection to inference.

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