List article ids

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

The description correctly aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, being a read operation. It adds value by noting the tool returns only IDs and is efficient, which annotations alone don't convey. It doesn't mention pagination via continuation, but since the parameter is self-explanatory, this is a minor gap.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey purpose, usage guidance, and efficiency. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy. Excellent 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 tool has 10 optional parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations confirm read-only. The description effectively covers the core behavioral aspect (only IDs, cheap) and usage context (same filters). A very brief note about the response being just IDs might help, yet the purpose is clear enough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely states that same selectors and filters apply. No additional value over the rich schema descriptions.

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 that the tool lists only IDs of matching articles, explicitly positioning it as a cheap alternative to list_articles. It specifies the purpose and resource precisely, distinguishing it well from its siblings, particularly list_articles.

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 explains the tool is a cheap way to collect a set for mark_articles, and states it uses the same selectors and filters as list_articles. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly indicates when not to use it (when full article details are needed).

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