get_problems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the pagination capability and the per_page limit of 100, which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as sorting, default ordering, or that results might be incomplete without pagination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: a single overview sentence followed by parameter bullet-points. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, list operation, output schema present in the context), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose and all parameters. It does not describe return values (output schema exists), and no filtering or sorting is relevant to a plain 'list all' operation. It could be improved by mentioning that pagination is necessary to retrieve all results, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'page: Page number' and 'per_page: Results per page (max 100)'. The 'max 100' constraint is not present in the schema, adding useful semantic detail. The explanations are brief but 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all problems with pagination.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_problem_by_id, which fetches a single problem, and from create_problem, which creates one. The scope ('all problems') and the pagination behavior are explicitly 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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for listing all problems with pagination. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific problem, use get_problem_by_id'), but the context is clear enough for a simple list-resource tool. No exclusions are given, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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