List Contest

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It transparently discloses a notable quirk: some contests (e.g., cnu2025) may not appear in the list, and suggests a workaround. Yet it omits details about the response format or other limitations.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a relevant caveat. No unnecessary information is included.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and an edge case. However, the advice to use a higher-level slug is ambiguous given the tool has no parameters, and the response structure is not described.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty object). The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 that the tool retrieves the list of contests on BOJ, using the specific verb '조회' and resource '대회 목록'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list-tag by its object, but doesn't explicitly contrast with search-contest.

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 this tool is for listing contests, with a specific note about handling missing entries like cnu2025 by using a parent slug. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus search-contest or analyze-contest.

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