dubbing_project_list

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 no further behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or return shape, leaving it entirely dependent on structured fields.

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 front-loaded phrase with zero waste. While extremely terse, it is appropriately concise for a list tool and avoids repetition of schema details.

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 at least hint at what is returned (a paginated list of dubbing projects) and how pagination works. The current description omits return value semantics and filtering context, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 all four parameters (cursor, status, page_size, sort_direction) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 'List Dubbing Projects' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-like tools such as list_dubs or dubbing_language_list, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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 (e.g., dubbing_project_get for a single project, or list_dubs). It states only what the tool does, not the context or conditions that select it.

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