List Guides

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool is read-only, local (never calls OpenL Studio), and that it returns only metadata. It also describes the source of the data (bundled documentation at a specific release tag), which is not covered by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 efficient but dense, packing key information into a single paragraph. It uses dashes and semicolons to separate ideas, but could benefit from bullet points for readability. No redundant sentences.

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 description covers the core purpose, filtering, pagination, and relationship to a sibling tool. However, it does not mention the response_format parameter or explain the return structure beyond listing metadata fields. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is mostly complete.

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 schema already has descriptions for 3 of 5 parameters (type, search, response_format) providing 60% coverage. The description adds context for pagination (limit/offset) but does not elaborate on response_format. Overall, it adds marginal value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to list metadata of OpenL reference documentation, explicitly noting it returns only metadata and directing to openl_get_guides for bodies. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope and linking to the complementary tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (listing metadata) and directs to openl_get_guides for full content. It mentions filtering and pagination but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative scenarios.

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