list_cheatsheets

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context: scope 'playground.read' indicates read-only, and 'content omitted' discloses that cheatsheet contents are not returned. However, it omits details on pagination, ordering, or what fields are included in the list.

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 concise, using two short lines. It front-loads the key action and scope. However, the brevity sacrifices parameter explanation.

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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the return format or pagination behavior, which are essential for correct invocation in a list operation.

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 should explain parameters. It does not mention limit or cursor, leaving the agent without context for their purpose or usage. The schema provides basic types but no semantics.

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 lists cheatsheets owned by the calling account, specifying the verb (list) and resource (cheatsheets) with ownership scope. It distinguishes from other cheatsheet tools like get_cheatsheet and create_cheatsheet.

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 user's own cheatsheets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use or comparison to sibling tools like list_competitions.

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