mf_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or read-only nature. It does not mention what the tool returns or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's core purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It scores high on conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, 4 enums, and many siblings, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what filters are available, or how it relates to other mf_* tools. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description does not aid the agent in selecting this tool over alternatives or understanding its scope.

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 description provides zero information about the 8 parameters. It does not mention filtering, sorting, pagination, or any of the parameter names. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so. The agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient for understanding the semantics.

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 function: browsing and screening mutual funds across 67 categories. It uses specific action verbs (browse/screen) and a clear resource (funds), and gives concrete examples of categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like mf_search (searching) and mf_categories (listing categories).

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 implies that this tool is for browsing funds by category, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. For example, it does not mention that mf_search should be used for specific fund lookups or mf_categories for category lists. There is no guidance on exclusions or conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the context.

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