List articles

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

Annotations already declare it is read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is cursor paginated, ordered by newest updated first, and requires a specific auth scope. This adds useful value without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds useful information (pagination, read-only, scope). No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: read-only nature, pagination, default ordering, and required scope. It relies on the rich parameter schema for filtering details. Some information about the response shape (e.g., a data array with next_cursor) is not explicitly described, but it is implied by 'cursor paginated' and the schema's cursor field.

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 90%, and the schema descriptions are already detailed for most parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond 'Cursor paginated' and 'newest updated first', which slightly clarify the cursor and order parameters. This is a typical baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 'List articles' with a specific verb and resource, and the resource is unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_article (singular) and create/update/delete_article, and from other list_* 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 provides context by noting it is read-only and requires articles:read scope, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_article for a single article, though this is inferable from the name and sibling list.

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