List the built-in worked examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that examples are cached, are real published contradictions, and require no API key. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it does not describe output format or pagination.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main action and subject are front-loaded, followed by the key qualifiers about cache, authenticity, and API-key-free execution.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent what is listed, where it comes from, why it matters, how it relates to a sibling tool, and what authentication is required.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. It adds useful semantic context by explaining what the returned examples are for, which helps the agent understand the tool's role even without parameters.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('StudyDiff's cached worked examples'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('real published contradictions'). It also links the resource to 'compare_example', making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling comparison tools.

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 implies this tool is the discovery step before running examples with 'compare_example', and notes that no API key is needed. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it versus 'compare_studies', but the list-versus-compare distinction is evident from the verb and context.

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