codebreaker_list_problems

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, but the description adds valuable context: login-dependent status display, login requirements for certain commands, and the default exclusion of Joke problems. These behaviors are not inferred from the annotation and help set expectations.

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 and front-loaded, using a compact paragraph with semicolon-separated details. It covers commands, filters, and pagination without redundancy, though the density might make it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient details about return fields, filtering, and pagination. It also notes login dependencies, which is complete enough for an agent to select and safely invoke the tool. No output schema is needed.

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 only 17%, but the description compensates well by explaining command values, the effect of status/tag/exclude_tags, and offset/limit pagination. It doesn't fully enumerate every enum value (e.g., status 'any' or 'unsolved' as a status), but it provides enough practical semantics for correct usage.

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 begins with 'List problems' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the returned fields (status, tags, type, AC counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like codebreaker_get_problem, which retrieves a single problem, and codebreaker_list_submissions, which lists submissions.

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?

It explains the command options and their login requirements ('both of the last two require login') and filter parameters (status, tag, exclude_tags) with pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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