list_texts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently states the return content (name, slug, verse count, URL) and implies a read-only listing, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, response size, or whether all texts arrive in a single call. For a simple zero-param list this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the exact metadata fields. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the exact return fields. Minor gaps remain around behavioral details (ordering, pagination, how returned slugs feed into siblings like get_verse), but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema makes description coverage trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly adds no parameter syntax because none exists.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('classical yoga texts'), and precise scope ('all available'), then enumerates the metadata returned (name, slug, verse count, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from the content-search siblings like search_verses, which operate on verse text rather than the catalog of texts.

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 phrase 'List all available classical yoga texts' establishes a clear browse/catalog context an agent can select against, distinct from the search-and-retrieve siblings. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or say 'use this before get_verse to obtain a slug,' but the use case is evident and no alternative routing is needed at this level.

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