List Guides

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds complementary behavioral detail: it never returns bodies, never calls OpenL Studio, embeds docs at a specific release tag, and explains the meaning of the two entry types. This goes well beyond annotation defaults without contradicting them.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the most decision-relevant fact (metadata only, use openl_get_guides for bodies) before explaining entry categories and filtering. Every clause adds useful information; nothing is 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the exact metadata fields returned, explains the content categories, covers filtering and pagination, names the companion tool for bodies, and notes the local read-only nature. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: it clarifies what 'type' values represent, that 'search' is case-insensitive over id and title, and that results are paginated via limit/offset. It does not describe response_format, but the schema already provides a solid enum description for it.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('OpenL reference documentation bundled with this server'), and an explicit scope ('METADATA ONLY') that distinguishes it immediately from openl_get_guides. It also names the sibling for retrieving bodies, removing ambiguity.

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 directs agents to use openl_get_guides when bodies are needed, establishes this as the metadata-browsing entry point, and clarifies filtering and pagination behavior. It also notes the tool is read-only and local, giving clear context for when it is appropriate to invoke.

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