list_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: platform support (Linux x86-64, macOS arm64) and the difference between mode=auto (traced as-is) and mode=explicit (self-recording, prints sensitivities) scripts. What is missing is any statement of the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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, but the first is a fragment ('Bundled scripts to start from: ...') and the middle sentence packs platform and mode details that are more about the examples than about the listing action. The key fact, that this enumerates examples, is never front-loaded.

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 simple no-arg listing tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what each list entry contains (name, path, platform, mode) so the agent knows what it can pass onward. It gives context about the scripts' contents but leaves the returned structure entirely unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion and spends its words on the objects being listed, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 describes what the bundled scripts are (plain AADC vs unmodified QuantLib pricers) but never states the actual operation: that it returns a list of available examples. An agent must infer from the name that this is an enumeration tool, and the two example families are only loosely framed as list contents.

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?

'Each is a starting point to copy and edit' implies the reason to call it (find a template), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_example, run_example, or trace_script, all of which operate on the same objects. The mode=auto / mode=explicit note hints at follow-up usage without naming the follow-up tool.

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