replication_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: state values (PENDING/RUNNING/FINISHED/ERROR/HOLD), the meaning of PENDING, the presence of an 'error' field with actionable sentences, and returned fields (lastSnapshot, lastRun). This goes beyond a simple list operation and helps the agent anticipate response content.

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 concise, front-loaded with a [READ] tag and a clear statement of purpose. It then provides just enough detail about state semantics and parameters without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description covers all return fields (name, direction, transport, state, error, lastSnapshot, lastRun). It also explains the target parameter fully. For a list operation with one optional parameter, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps in understanding what the tool does and returns.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'target' with a default of null and no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'target' is a TrueNAS target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. This adds complete semantic meaning for the only parameter.

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') and resource ('replication tasks'), enumerating the key fields (name, direction, transport, state). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alert_list or dataset_list by focusing on replication tasks. The [READ] prefix also signals the operation type.

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 implies when to use this tool: to list replication tasks and inspect their state/error information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the specialized resource. No direct sibling alternative exists, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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