list_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the filtering behavior and the discovery intent. However it says nothing about scope limits, pagination, or whether set options and cards are returned in the same shape. For a read-only listing tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the listing scope front-loaded and the usage caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope and filtering. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, missing only clarification of what the enum values mean in practice.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'kind' parameter has only a default of 'all' documented. The description compensates by spelling out the accepted values (card|set|all), which is the key semantic the schema omits. The only gap is that it doesn't say what 'set' vs 'card' actually selects.

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 and resource ('List all known Serpent input cards and set options') and names the optional filter. The discovery framing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item sibling get_card, though it never names that sibling 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('Useful for discovery when the exact name is unknown'), which is exactly the situation that routes an agent here over get_card or search_docs. It stops short of naming the alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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