list_problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON string containing total count and results'), which adds some value, but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second describes the return format. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys core information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or usage context.

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 has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but misses parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits like pagination or auth requirements, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention the parameters (offset and limit) at all, offering no semantic meaning beyond what the schema's titles ('Offset', 'Limit') imply. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the description hints at pagination through the return format, it partially compensates but doesn't fully explain parameter usage. Baseline is 3 due to low parameter count.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('list of problems from the Online Judge'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_problem_details' (specific problem) and 'list_my_submissions' (user-specific), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for browsing all problems versus filtered lists, or how it relates to 'get_problem_details' for detailed views. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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