List Build Planner files and guides

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first, each entry indicates whether this tool created it, and guide folders returned are only those this tool made — useful provenance semantics an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

One compact sentence with the ordering/provenance caveats front-loaded, followed by routing guidance. Nothing is wasted, though the leading noun phrase reads as a sentence fragment and could more directly state the listing action.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so by naming the file names, the newest-first ordering, the creator flag, and the guide folders. That is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps (no mention of whether results can be empty or paginated).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by never referencing any input.

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 names the specific resource (.build files in the Path of Exile 2 BuildPlanner folder) and the secondary output (guide folders this tool created), which clearly separates it from siblings like remove_builds or export_build. The sentence is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, so the listing action is inferred from the title rather than stated outright, but the object of the tool is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use before remove_builds, or to find the file names of earlier exports.' That explicitly ties it to a sibling workflow and a lookup purpose. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., that it does not filter or search), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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