list_mirrors

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

The description notes that the tool 'hot-reloads config', which is a behavioral detail beyond a simple list operation. However, it is unclear whether this is a side effect or the primary action. No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility, but the phrase lacks clarity on the impact.

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 sentence, front-loaded with main purpose, no superfluous words. Every word 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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return categories. It covers the main information an agent would need to invoke the tool. However, it could mention the format or that it returns a list.

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 no parameters, and the description clarifies what is listed (mirrors, PDF hosts, Unpaywall status, settings), adding value beyond the empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 params gets baseline 4.

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?

Clearly states it lists configured Sci-Hub mirrors, PDF hosts, Unpaywall status, and settings. The verb 'list' and the resource categories are specific. It also distinguishes from siblings like check_mirrors (which checks availability) and reload_config (which reloads config without listing).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or compare with sibling tools like check_mirrors or reload_config. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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