List VR.org original articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results are ordered newest first, and it returns summaries rather than full article bodies (implying get_vr_article is needed for content). No auth or rate-limit details, but that is a minor omission for a read-only list tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource and content scope are front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned last. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers scope, content types, ordering, and return granularity. It could go slightly further by noting the absence of pagination beyond the limit cap or by pointing to get_vr_article for full text, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already documents limit (1-50, default 15) and enumerates the category values. The description only echoes that category filtering is optional, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns summaries) and resource (VR.org's own editorial articles), and enumerates the content types (original reporting, opinion, retrospectives, guides). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_vr_news and get_vr_article, which cover external news and full articles respectively.

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?

Mentions that category filtering is optional and implies a browsing/listing use case, but never states when to prefer this over search_vr_news or get_vr_article. The relationship to sibling tools is left entirely to inference.

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