List Agentic Reference Architectures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'all' scoping and the list of returned fields, but does not reveal additional behavioral details such as pagination, result limits, or any implicit ordering. This is adequate but not rich, matching the calibration for safe read tools with annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, and output fields; the second provides routing guidance. Key information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it instead of the search sibling. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the sole parameter 'locale' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default value. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'reference architectures (end-to-end enterprise agentic blueprints)' and enumerates the returned fields: id, slug, category, name, summary and provenance. This goes beyond the title and distinguishes the operation from generic browsing or searching.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to browse the blueprints') and when to use the alternative ('use `search` when you have a use case rather than a name'). This gives an agent clear decision criteria for routing between sibling tools.

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