sr_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact return envelope ({"srs", "returned", "limit", "truncated"}) and the meaning of the truncated flag with its follow-up implication. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the one-line purpose, followed by return shape, truncation note, and an args block — every line carries information. The pseudo-signature style of the Args section is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 supplies the return envelope and the truncation semantics itself, and documents all three otherwise-undocumented parameters. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: pool is documented as an optional pool uuid filter, limit as the maximum returned after filtering with a default of 200, and target as the XO config target name with explicit omit-for-default behavior. Only the uuid format of pool is left unspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List SRs") and even names the payload fields returned (capacity, physical usage, virtual allocation), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly contrast with sr_get or sr_usage_rca, which are the closest siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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 [READ] tag and the truncation note imply a read/list usage pattern, but no when-to-use conditions or alternatives are stated (e.g., use sr_get for a single SR, sr_usage_rca for capacity analysis). Usage is inferable from the verb but not guided.

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