list_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'returns a filtered, sorted list.' It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or other side effects. The limit parameter hints at pagination but is not elaborated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. No unnecessary words; every part adds 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 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers filtering briefly but omits sorting order, pagination details (e.g., max limit), and return structure. Output schema exists but description does not reference it.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains path, tags, type, and since parameters, but does not clarify formats (e.g., date format for 'since', how tags are specified). Limit is mentioned but not further explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 lists concepts with optional filters and specifies filterable fields (type, tags, modification date, path prefix). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch_concepts, which could cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fetch_concepts, show_concept). The description only mentions optional filters, lacking context for when filtering is appropriate or when another tool better suits the task.

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