aism_content_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact ('Includes pagination headers'), but says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, or response shape.

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 compact sentences with the core resource list front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Also supports types, taxonomies and statuses' is slightly vague but still informative.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource universe and notes pagination headers. The main residual gap is that the free-form query object's supported keys and behaviors are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 67% and the required 'resource' parameter has no schema description, so the description's enumeration of resources is carrying real weight. However, the open-ended 'query' object (context, status, search, per_page, page, _fields) and the 'site' semantics get no elaboration beyond the schema.

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+resource ('List/search') and enumerates exactly what resource values are accepted (posts, pages, media, terms, comments, custom). That makes it distinguishable from retrieval siblings like aism_content_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'List/search' implies the read-many use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus aism_content_get, aism_discover, or aism_schema, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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