List lesion network mapping study designs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a table of id, name, and what the design establishes, and explains that the id is passed to other tools. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then covers when to use it, what designs are included, what is returned, and when not to use it. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is redundant or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with only one optional parameter, the description is complete: it states the purpose, usage timing, scope, return format, and routing alternative. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 single parameter, response_format, is fully described in the schema with an enum and a clear explanation of markdown vs json. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every study design this server can plan, check, and audit.' It also names the exact design types covered and explicitly differentiates this tool from lnm_outline_paper by saying not to use it when the design id is already known.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use this first when you do not yet know which design a study is, or to show a user the options.' It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: 'Don't use when: you already know the design id — call lnm_outline_paper directly.' This fully routes an agent to the correct tool.

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