List design principles & patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the return fields (slug, name, category, one-line summary) and noting the optional filter. It does not discuss pagination or side effects, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first states the core purpose, the second lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the optional filtering, and the return fields. The presence of an output schema means return values are already formally defined, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'kind' parameter including its enum values and default. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, just restates the option to filter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the catalog of software-design concepts' clearly states the action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_concept' (which explains rather than lists) and 'scaffold_pattern' (which generates code).

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 mentions 'optionally filtered by kind', implying when to use the filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage context is implicit from the sibling names and the tool's listing purpose.

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