list_theses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation with 'browse', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or that it is read-only. Minimal transparency.

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 short sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It front-loads the purpose, but lacks structure and fails to include necessary details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the returned list contains (e.g., thesis titles, IDs). It does not. Parameter meanings and behavioral context are missing, leaving the description incomplete for a simple listing tool.

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% (both parameters lack descriptions). The tool description does not mention or explain the 'status' or 'limit' parameters, adding no meaning beyond the schema's basic structure and enums.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('public trade theses'), and mentions types of theses (entry/invalidation/targets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thesis' by indicating a list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_thesis' or 'list_memos'. No context on prerequisites, filter combinations, or when not to use.

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