list_content_systems

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so much of the behavioral burden is covered. The description adds that this is specifically about brand voice systems, which adds context, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or any limitations. With read-only annotations in place, the added behavior context is moderate rather than rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states what the tool offers and immediately grounds it with examples. Every word earns its place on, and no unnecessary context is included.

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 read-only list with two optional params and a schema documenting both, the description communicates the core purpose and scope effectively. It does not mention return fields or how this differs from sibling listing tools, but those are not essentials for an agent to understand what the tool invokes.

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 describes both parameters, with the search parameter covering name, description, or tag and the category parameter listing all allowed categories. The description merely paraphrases 'filter by category or search by name' and actually under-specifies search scope, so it adds almost no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Browse') and resource ('content design systems'), and explains they are brand voice and tone guides with concrete examples. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_design_systems, but the examples make the focus reasonably distinct.

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 explains how to filter, not when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no cues for choosing list_content_systems over sibling list_design_systems or get_content_system, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and examples.

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