list_theorems

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 reveals that the tool depends on already-loaded state ('currently loaded paper'), but it does not describe what happens when no paper is loaded, whether the list has a defined order, or any other behavioral side effects. The return format is covered by an output schema, but behavioral context remains thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, yet the description only explains the core action. It leaves unresolved important operational context: what 'kind' means, how to use it, whether a paper must be loaded, and how this tool relates to the other theorem-oriented siblings. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but significant gaps remain.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the 'kind' parameter at all. An agent cannot tell what values 'kind' accepts, how it filters the results, or whether it is intended to distinguish theorem, lemma, corollary, or other environments. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and names the resource, 'theorem-like environments in the currently loaded paper.' It is clear what the tool does at a high level and is distinguishable from the sibling get_theorem, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_theorem, where_used, or get_dependencies. The phrase 'currently loaded paper' only implies that a paper must be loaded first, but this prerequisite is not made explicit and no exclusions or alternative routes are provided.

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