list_divisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Dữ liệu hardcode, không gọi API' (hardcoded data, no API call), indicating static results and no network dependency. It also mentions the optional filter. However, it does not describe the output format, error handling, or any limitations beyond the hardcoded nature, leaving some gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a useful behavioral note. It contains no redundant phrases, filler, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and good schema coverage, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, filtering, and data source. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the tool's name and purpose strongly suggest a list of division names. This is adequate for the tool's low complexity, though a brief note on the response shape would make it fully complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the sole parameter 'pitaka', including enum values and the default behavior when omitted ('Bỏ trống → trả về tất cả'). The description's mention of filtering by pitaka adds little beyond the schema. The high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and no significant additional meaning is added by the description.

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 starts with 'Liệt kê các divisions' (list the divisions), using a specific verb and resource. It specifies the domain 'trên SuttaCentral' (on SuttaCentral), which distinguishes it from other listing tools. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and accurate.

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: use this tool to list divisions, optionally filtered by pitaka. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like search_topic or get_sutta. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is implied but not fully developed.

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