list_kinds

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: kinds derive from the site's cross-reference index, vary per site, and the return shape for both markdown and JSON is fully documented. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 well-structured: a concise opening definition, a brief explanatory paragraph about site variability and usage, then clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 is simple and well-covered: annotations declare safety, the description details what kinds are, how they relate to sites, how to use the output with `search`, and the exact return formats for both markdown and JSON. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's Args section restates the same information (site alias, response_format options) without adding new meaning. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('List') and resource ('kinds of entries') with the scope of a Verso site and counts. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that the returned kind values are used to filter `search`, and it references `list_sites` for site aliases.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to obtain `kind` values for filtering `search`. It also explains that kinds vary per site, implying the tool is needed to discover them dynamically. This is an explicit use case with a named alternative (`search`).

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