List design principles & patterns

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns each concept's slug, name, category, and one-line summary, and that filtering is optional. It does not describe side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient and adds value beyond the tool name.

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 a single sentence that delivers the core action, the optional filter, and the return payload in a well-structured, front-loaded way. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and no siblings referenced in the description, the description is complete enough: it states what is listed, the filter option, and the fields returned. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than sibling tools, which would make it fully 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'kind' parameter, including all enum values and their meanings. The description only mentions 'optionally filtered by kind' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the catalog of software-design concepts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (scaffold_pattern, explain_concept, check_smells) by focusing on listing and optionally filtering, rather than scaffolding, explaining, or checking.

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 concepts and optionally filtering by kind, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like explain_concept or check_smells. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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