list_smells

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the 'all' scope and the optional-filter behavior, but says nothing about the shape of the returned list, ordering, or pagination, leaving the agent to discover those at call time.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('all') and the optional filter are stated before any detail. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain how 'locale' affects the returned smell text, whether the list is complete or paginated, or what a smell record contains, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 50%: 'category' is documented in the schema with example values, while 'locale' relies on its enum and default, both self-explanatory. The description restates the category filter without adding syntax or allowed values beyond what the schema already carries, so 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('UX smells'), and clarifies the term with '(anti-patterns)', so an agent knows this is a catalog enumeration rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_smell or detect_smell, leaving the list-vs-single-item distinction to naming convention.

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?

'Optionally filtered by category' implies that filtering is available but not required, which is mild usage guidance. It never states when an agent should call this instead of get_smell or detect_smell, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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