list_custom_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the scope (playground.read) implying read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no problems exist. Minimal behavioral context.

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 concise with two lines, but it could include parameter information without being verbose. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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 tool is a listing endpoint with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description should mention pagination, sorting, or return format. It lacks these details, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke properly.

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% and the description does not explain the limit and cursor parameters. An agent would not know these are for pagination, and the description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 private custom problems (Lean statement pairs) owned by the calling account, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_custom_problem (single item) and create/delete_custom_problem.

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 listing own problems but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_custom_problem or search variants. No guidance on pagination or filtering is provided.

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