List problem generators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting these are built-in classic single-test generators, but beyond that and the sibling distinction it does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or ordering semantics. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core listing behavior and consumers, the second adds the necessary distinction from the sibling tool. Essential information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, which fields are returned, who consumes the values, and how this differs from the house-template alternative.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, 4 is appropriate; the description even adds value by listing the returned metadata fields, though that is more output-oriented than parameter-oriented.

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 states the specific verb 'List' and the exact resource: built-in problem generators, including the output fields (kind, title, difficulty, tags). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from repovive_list_house_templates, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 names repovive_generate_problem and repovive_build_contest as the consumers of these templates, establishing when the listed values are relevant. It also directs the agent to repovive_list_house_templates for Repovive's round format, giving a clear alternative and selection criterion.

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