list_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that the response excludes HTML content—which sets expectations for the return payload. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or other potential side effects, though the schema does cover parameters.

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 is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy and providing essential context without unnecessary 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?

For a simple list operation with optional filters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the returned scope (metadata only), directs to get_article for full content, and the schema handles parameter documentation, making the tool complete for its intended use.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, limit, category_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so 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 lists blog articles and specifies it returns metadata only, without HTML content. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_article, which provides full content, making the purpose and scope immediately clear.

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 directs users to use get_article for full content, providing a clear alternative. It implies that this tool is for metadata-only needs, giving a distinct use case versus its sibling.

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