quickshell_list_guide_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the in-process cache and how to bypass it with refresh=True, and the default version behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if an invalid version is given), output format beyond 'list', or any side effects. For a simple listing tool, the disclosed cache behavior adds value, but the lack of error/return specifics leaves gaps.

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—and front-loads the core purpose (listing guide pages) while immediately adding examples. It then covers the two parameters (version, refresh) efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list operation with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the action and inputs. However, it does not specify the return structure (e.g., an array of page names) or how the list is presented. For an agent, knowing the exact output type would reduce ambiguity, especially when chaining with get_guide_page. The description is adequate but not fully complete in terms of expected results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully interpret both parameters. It explains 'version' as a doc version and provides examples (install-setup, introduction, etc.), clarifying expected values beyond the schema's default 'latest'. It also explains the 'refresh' parameter as a cache-bypass flag. This adds meaning the schema lacks, though it could be slightly more explicit about possible version formats (e.g., valid strings) but the examples suffice.

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 the tool's action: 'List the Usage Guide pages available for a given doc version.' It provides concrete examples of pages (install-setup, introduction, etc.), making the resource and scope unambiguous. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the verb 'list' versus 'get' in siblings like quickshell_get_guide_page strongly differentiates it without needing further clarification.

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 offers context on when to use the tool by mentioning it works for a specific doc version and defaults to latest if not provided. It also explains the refresh parameter for cache bypass. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use list_guide_pages vs get_guide_page), and no exclusions or restrictions are stated. The use case is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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