list_content_systems

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the content (brand voice and tone guides from real companies) and the filtering capabilities. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes concrete examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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's low complexity, two optional parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of names/IDs), but the presence of a sibling get tool implies the list yields identifying information. Overall sufficient for an agent.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the filtering options but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: to browse available content design systems, naming specific real-world examples (Mailchimp, GOV.UK, etc.), and mentions filtering by category or search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_content_system, which retrieves a single system.

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 when to use—when you want to browse or find a content design system—but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_content_system instead). There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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