list_subjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful default-scoping behavior, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for a list operation.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded ahead of the default-behavior caveat.

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 return-value detail is not required, and the description already names the key fields. The only gap is the unexplained non-default branch of the single parameter, which is minor for a simple read-only lister.

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% for the single boolean parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the default state (with_published_guides effectively true) but never states what the non-default value returns, leaving half the semantics implied.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the site's guide subjects) and names the returned fields (id, name, slug). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_guides and get_database, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 default filtering behavior ('By default only subjects that have published guides') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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