List attachable contests

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that the list is scoped to attachment eligibility for the authenticated account, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or whether the list is a snapshot.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the second provides an actionable next step.

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 parameterless read-only list, the description covers what the tool returns and how to use the result. Combined with the readOnly/openWorld annotations and the output schema, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds value by telling the agent that the result contains contest ids and how those ids should be used.

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 and resource: it lists contests the authenticated account may attach a finished draft to. It also explicitly names the downstream tool, repovive_build_add_to_contest, which distinguishes it from generic contest-listing tools like repovive_list_contests.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to discover contests that a finished draft can be attached to. It gives an actionable follow-up instruction to feed one of the returned ids to repovive_build_add_to_contest, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools.

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