Browse Beautiful Solutions Entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says only 'List compact source entries', which essentially restates the tool name and gives no information about pagination, default result count, ordering, or whether any filters are mutually exclusive. It does not explicitly confirm a read-only side-effect profile.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the main action and filter options are front-loaded. 'Compact source entries' packs useful scope information efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not say what a returned 'compact source entry' looks like or how it differs from 'search_toolbox' results. The default behavior of 'max_results' (all matching entries) is only in the schema, not surfaced in the description, leaving agents without a mental model of the response.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description names 'toolbox type' and 'sector', matching the 'type' and 'sector' parameters, adding no new semantics. 'max_results' is left entirely to the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('compact source entries'), and optional filters ('toolbox type or sector'). It distinguishes from 'get_entry' by implying a multi-entry listing, but does not explicitly contrast with 'search_toolbox', so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this over siblings like 'search_toolbox' or 'get_related_entries'. The only usage signal is the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer context. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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