قائمة سور القرآن الكريم

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the complete result set (all 114 surahs), its ordering, and that each entry carries a number. It does not describe the return format or confirm safety/read-only nature explicitly, so gaps remain for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, count, ordering, and per-item content with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for a trivial listing tool. The only residual gap is the shape of the returned entries (field names/structure), which an agent must infer.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly signals a no-argument invocation by describing a fixed, complete enumeration.

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?

States a specific verb (يعيد / returns) and resource (أسماء سور القرآن الكريم الـ114) with scope detail: 114 items, ordered, each with its number. An agent can tell this is a catalogue-listing tool distinct from siblings like get_surah_audio or get_ayah. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it just below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_reciters or search_quran. The purpose implies a lookup of the surah index, but nothing states prerequisites or the conditions that select this tool over its siblings.

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