list_mastery_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavior by specifying the output is a compact summary with total count, progress, next point, and due reviews. This is useful context beyond 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?

A single sentence that packs the purpose, the scope, the output content, and an alternative into one breath. Nothing extraneous, purpose is 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 list tool with an output schema, the description tells the agent what the output contains and when to use this versus the sibling. No missing instructions for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so the description needs no parameter explanations. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't under-deliver.

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'), resource ('Mastery Path'), and scope ('every'), and enumerates the summary fields (count, progress, next point, due reviews). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_mastery_path by noting that tool provides the full outline.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative get_mastery_path and directs when to use it ('for the full outline'), which clearly frames this tool as the summary-only variant. No ambiguity about when to use which.

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