list_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states that it returns a list. It does not disclose whether pagination, ordering, or return format details are provided. This is adequate for a simple list operation, but it lacks deeper behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, and the second gives usage context. There is no redundant filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 moderately simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It does not explicitly describe the return list structure, but the sibling tool `get_guideline` implies that detailed content is fetched separately, and the filter description hints at title/body fields.

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 only parameter `filter` has a complete description in the schema ('Filters by guideline title or body keyword'), resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description itself does not mention the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns the list of Levit design system guidelines, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('guideline list'). It also enumerates example document types (accessibility, color usage, component principles), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tokens or list_components.

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 says 'use it when looking for documents such as accessibility, color usage, component principles,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'when looking for' phrasing gives a strong usage indication.

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