rust_list_practices

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states it lists by chapter, omitting any disclosure of side effects, authentication, or behavior for invalid chapters. The minimal text does not add behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 very short (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-informative despite its conciseness.

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?

Given the simple tool with one enum parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context—such as the format of the returned list or behavior for invalid chapters. Current coverage is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 'by chapter' but does not explain the parameter's values or how to use them. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's enum definition.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'Rust best practices' with a clear scope 'by chapter', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like rust_get_practice and rust_list_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rust_get_practice for a single practice). Context signals indicate no usage hints in annotations either.

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