list_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the listing contains ('each with a one-line summary and tags') and notes the MerLin gallery scope, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or that this is a read-only enumeration. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by useful scope detail and a compact Args block. Slightly verbose in the MerLin gallery clause, but every sentence contributes.

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 explained, yet the description still gives the shape (one-line summary + tags). Both optional parameters are covered. Complete enough for a two-param listing tool, with only minor gaps around result limits.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for both params: library values ('merlin' default, or 'perceval') and topic's matching scope ('title, summary or tag') plus sample values. It omits that topic is nullable/optional, but the key semantics are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the runnable example notebooks shipped with the library') and then differentiates from the sibling get_example by explaining that names from this listing are the input to that tool. An agent can distinguish it from search_docs/get_api_doc without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly routes the agent: 'Pass a name from here to get_example', establishing the list-then-fetch workflow. It also explains the topic filter's intended use with concrete examples. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over search_docs/search_api, which is the natural adjacent alternative.

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