List Agentic Reference Architectures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that it returns the full set ('all') and the specific metadata fields, but it does not disclose other behavioral nuances like pagination or sorting. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns, notes the 'all' scope, and tells when to use the search sibling instead. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers the single optional parameter (locale) with a full description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about locale behavior or defaults, which is acceptable since the schema already documents it. Baseline 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 all reference architectures and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, slug, category, name, summary, provenance). It uses a specific verb with a defined resource and distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('browse the blueprints') and when to use an alternative ('use `search` when you have a use case rather than a name'). This is precise guidance with a named alternative, fully satisfying usage direction.

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