ctf_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sort order ('easy-first (most solves)') and the meaning of the unsolved flag, but says nothing about pagination, what limit=0 means, or whether any auth/session is required for the CTF API.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by filter and ordering semantics. The semicolon style borders on telegraphic, but every clause conveys information.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields (id, name, category, value, solves, solved) is redundant. For a 4-param tool with zero schema documentation, the description should at minimum define limit's behavior, which it omits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 params. It explains category/name filtering and the unsolved flag, but leaves limit (default 0) completely undefined and never clarifies the interaction between filters.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List challenges'), which clearly separates it from siblings like ctf_show (single challenge) and ctf_solved. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filtering hints ('unsolved=True hides solved; filter by category/name') imply when the flags are useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use ctf_list versus ctf_solved or ctf_show, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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