aiva_list_affiliates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'stats' and 'sortable by performance', hinting at read-only behavior and output characteristics, but fails to specify critical details like whether this is a paginated list, what 'stats' include, error conditions, or rate limits. For a list operation with three parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List affiliates') and adds key features ('with stats, sortable by performance') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., what 'stats' include), behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), and usage context compared to siblings. For a list tool with multiple parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to effectively invoke and interpret results.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies sorting by 'performance' (mapping to the 'sortBy' parameter with enums like 'referrals' and 'revenue') and hints at filtering by 'stats' (possibly related to 'status'), but doesn't explain parameter meanings, defaults, or interactions. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate, leaving parameters partially undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('affiliates'), and specifies that it includes 'stats' and is 'sortable by performance', which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aiva_get_affiliate' (which likely retrieves a single affiliate) or 'aiva_get_referrals' (which might focus on referral data specifically), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'aiva_get_affiliate' for single affiliates or 'aiva_list_subscriptions' for other list operations, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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