golang_list_practices

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists practices, which implies a read-only operation, and clarifies priority codes (P0=critical, P1=standard). However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or whether the output is a simple list or contains detailed descriptions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Essential information (verb, resource, filters, priority interpretation) is front-loaded. Highly concise.

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 list tool with two self-explanatory parameters, the description provides enough context to understand purpose and input. However, it lacks details about output format or any limitations, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the priority parameter by defining P0 and P1, which is helpful. The topic parameter enums are self-explanatory, but no additional explanation is provided. Overall, partial compensation for low 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?

Description specifies verb 'List', resource 'Go best practices', and filtering dimensions (topic and priority). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like golang_list_patterns by focusing on practices rather than patterns.

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 implies usage for listing practices filtered by topic and priority but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., golang_get_practice for a single practice, golang_list_patterns for patterns). No exclusions or when-not-to-use are stated.

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