List guidance documents

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context about the documents being bundled with the server and the returned fields (id, title, coverage, resource URI), but does not mention pagination or ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core list action and scope, then uses a compact paragraph to explain the document contents, filtering, and return fields. Every sentence earns its place, and the final pointer to lnm_get_guidance is a useful, minimal next-step instruction.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned and how to fetch a full document. It could more explicitly draw boundaries against sibling list tools, but the content areas and the mention of document IDs and URIs give an agent enough to operate correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the general 'Filter by design or topic' guidance, which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation load.

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 and resource: 'List the long-form guidance documents bundled with this server.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the document set as 'the prose references behind the other tools' and explicitly directs single-document retrieval to lnm_get_guidance.

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?

Provides useful context on when to use the tool: it lists the reference documents and says to 'Fetch one with lnm_get_guidance.' It also explains the documents are background prose for other tools and offers filtering by design or topic. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools such as lnm_list_designs or lnm_methods_checklist, so selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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