list_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it contains a contradictory count (45 entries vs 30+ posts + 45 images), which is confusing. It also does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe output format/pagination.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, the parenthetical breakdown of entries is cluttered and contains confusing arithmetic, reducing overall clarity despite its brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what is returned but does not, and the count inconsistency adds ambiguity. It provides context about the corpus and filter/sort options, but these are not enough to fully understand the tool's behavior for a 3-parameter list operation.

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 only 33%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. 'Filtrable par archetype' repeats the archetype parameter description, and 'tri par engagement' only mentions one of the two order_by enum values without explaining the 'archetype' sort option. The 'limit' parameter is not explained at all.

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 the tool lists lead magnets from the reference corpus, using a specific verb (liste) and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_published by specifying 'corpus de référence'.

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 when to use it (listing corpus entries) and mentions filter/sort capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or provide exclusions. It relies on the name and context.

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