list_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. The description does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, default time ranges, rate limits, or what happens with no filters. The parameter pageSize implies pagination but is not explained.

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, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could benefit from a structured format (e.g., listing key features) to improve readability without sacrificing 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?

The description lacks important context for a list tool: no output schema, no mention of default time ranges (though 'from' has a default in schema), no pagination behavior, and no information about what fields are returned. This leaves the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively.

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 50% (problemSelector and from have descriptions). The description adds context by linking filters to problemSelector and timeframe, aiding understanding. However, it does not explain the 'to' parameter or 'pageSize' beyond what the schema provides, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'problems (classic Problems v2)'. It also mentions filtering capabilities, providing a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_problem or other list_* tools, which could be improved.

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 usage for listing problems with filters via problemSelector and timeframe. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_problem for single problems, or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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