list_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/filter operation but never states that it is non-mutating, what it returns, or how pagination/default limit behaves, leaving key behavior to inference.

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 short sentences with the pipeline position front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy between the bracket tag and "master content items" keeps it from a 5.

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?

A read/list tool with 5 optional params and no output schema or annotations; the description covers intent and workflow but not return shape or pagination behavior. Adequate against full schema coverage, but not richly complete.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description only gestures at filtering ("Use filters") without adding format or semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ("List master content items") and situates it in a pipeline step, which helps separate it from sibling listers like list_ideas and list_blog_posts. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear workflow context — "typically reach this after promote_idea (step 2→3)" — and a positive trigger ("find drafts pending derivation"). It does not say when-not to use it or contrast with the many other list_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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