get_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it fails to disclose the default/max limit of 25/100 from the schema. Saying 'List all hills' is misleading when the limit parameter caps results, and no pagination or output format is described. The description does mention sorting and height-range filtering, but the limit omission is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. It efficiently conveys the resource, examples, sorting, and filtering in one line, earning every word.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, sorting, and filtering. However, it does not mention the limit parameter, which means a caller could mistakenly expect all hills rather than a capped result set. This is a notable completeness gap given the schema's limit behavior.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds some context by grouping min_metres and max_metres as an 'optional height range filter' and providing classification examples, but it does not add syntax-level detail or mention the limit parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'hills in a classification' with concrete examples (Munros, Wainwrights, Corbetts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting sorting by height and optional height-range filtering, making it clearly different from search, nearby, details, or stats tools.

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 implied usage is clear: use this when you need a list of hills in a given classification. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like search_hills or find_nearby_hills, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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