listGmatSamples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the scope (NASA official plus community corpus), tagging, and naming convention. It's clear what the tool does and what the output represents. Minor omission: no mention of ordering or pagination, but for a parameterless list it's largely transparent.

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?

Single paragraph, well-structured with clear information. Could be slightly more concise by removing the ellipsis at the end, but overall it's efficient and 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool lists, the source of samples, and how to use it in conjunction with getGmatSample. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (tags, community prefix), which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 it lists available GMAT sample scripts with tags for techniques. It distinguishes from siblings like getGmatSample and runGmat by explicitly mentioning that the list is for browsing and then using getGmatSample to read.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Scan the tags to pick the right seed for a mission, then getGmatSample to read it.' This tells when to use this tool (to browse/list and select) and when to use getGmatSample (to read the actual content).

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