AI List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the status-scoping rule (any status for a clip, finished-only account-wide), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two modes following immediately. No filler.

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 should hint at what comes back (IDs, statuses, pagination), and it only conveys the status filter. Adequate to call the tool correctly, but thin on return-shape and volume expectations.

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 0% and clipId is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does: including clipId changes both scope and status filtering. It never states the parameter name or type, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List AI generations') and distinguishes two scopes: per-clip results and account-wide finished results. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (ai_status), but the listing intent is unmistakable.

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 implicitly defines when each mode applies: pass a clip to get that clip's generations in any status, or omit it to get the account's finished ones. That is clear usage context, though no alternative tool is named and no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing is given.

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