list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable traits beyond a plain list operation: the call is 'cheap and cacheable' and results only change when the index is rebuilt. For a read-only listing tool, this is useful context, though it could go further on pagination or output size expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first explains output scope, the second gives a usage trigger with a warning, and the third provides cost and freshness context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the remaining context: what data is returned, when to call it, and why it is safe/cheap to call. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool is missing.

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 input schema describes both parameters completely, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond saying 'every product', which is slightly at odds with the optional filters, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List every Neutrinos product'), and enumerates exactly what the result includes: versions, current version, topic count, and last-updated time. This is distinct from the sibling tools like 'search_docs' and 'compare_versions', so an agent can select it confidently.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before 'search_docs' when unsure what to pass for 'product' or 'version'. It even explains the failure mode ('guessing filter values is the most common cause of an empty search'), which gives a clear, actionable decision rule.

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