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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the attention field, its five reason codes, the most-urgent-first sort order, objects_not_on_map, and explicit scope limits. It also declares what the tool does not do — it does not run, watch, or know the intended cadence of automations.

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?

Purpose and the core use cases are front-loaded, and the sentences carry genuine information. The attention clause is slightly redundant ('most urgent first' restated as 'the list comes sorted that way'), but overall it is dense rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: entry structure (attention with reasons), sort order, the objects_not_on_map field, and the scope restriction. It also states the tool's epistemic limits, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that 'object' is matched as the map spells it and that results are gated by key scope. The attention reason codes it lists overlap only partially with the status enum, which is a mild risk of confusion rather than a contradiction.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource, and defines the resource concretely (a flow in the shop platform, a zap, a scheduled job, an agent on a timer) bound to objects of this map. That definition makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling listers such as list_processes, list_findings, or list_signals.

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?

Gives two explicit use cases ('what breaks if an object changes', 'find automation that is dead') and a filtering route ('Filter with object'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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