List techniques

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' correctly implies a non-mutating read and 'with the papers behind it' adds return-content context beyond the schema, but nothing is said about permissions, data freshness, or result size, so a low-risk listing tool is only partially covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope statement and the payload hint both earn their place. Nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description only needs to establish what is listed and that papers accompany each technique, which it does. The gap is the absence of any note on how this catalog relates to the sibling tools.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema has an empty properties object and no semantics are needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every technique the improver knows') and adds scope detail ('with the papers behind it') that hints at the payload. It is clearly distinct from the sibling mutation-style tools improve_prompt and analyze_prompt, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 implies a discovery/inventory use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or conditions for preferring it over improve_prompt or analyze_prompt. An agent can infer it is a read-only catalog lookup, but the routing is left to inference.

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