devto_list_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that this is a browse/discovery operation, enumerates the 139 operations split into 49 reachable and 90 excluded with reasons, and indicates that operation ids are returned. It could explicitly state that it executes no API operations, but the verb 'browse' and the stated purpose make that clear enough.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core facts about what the tool lists and why are front-loaded, followed by the actionable instruction to call it first. Every 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must indicate what the caller receives, and it does: a browsable list of 139 operations with operation ids and exclusion reasons. It does not spell out the exact return shape or pagination, but for a discovery tool with optional filters this is nearly 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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context around include_excluded by mentioning the 49 reachable and 90 excluded operations, but it does not materially extend the meaning of search. No compensation is needed since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 a specific purpose: browse the 139 operations in the Forem/Dev.to API and find the operation id needed for devto_call. The resource and action are explicit, and this is distinctly a discovery tool rather than one of the execution sibling 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 description gives explicit usage context with "Call this first to find the operation id for devto_call," which tells the agent when this tool should be used. It does not spell out when not to use it, but no rival discovery tool exists among the siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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