list_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context that the list is the target of iterate_list sweeps and is populated by add_company or any list_jobs lookup, revealing the list's provenance and mutability. It does not disclose return format, ordering, or pagination, but for a read-only 0-param listing the core behavior is clear.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and precise. The second sentence adds valuable context but is grammatically awkward ('These are the boards iterate_list sweeps'), which costs it a top conciseness score.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior and the list's relationship to sibling tools. The main omission is the return value shape (e.g., IDs vs names), which is not specified anywhere and could require inference by the agent.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description therefore needs no parameter details and does not add misleading parameter information.

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 first sentence, 'Show every company currently saved in the tracked company list,' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly scopes the result to the tracked-list with no filtering. This distinguishes it from job-focused siblings like list_jobs and mutation tools like add_company/remove_company.

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 clarifies that this is the board list used by iterate_list and how companies enter it, which implies when to use it (to inspect the tracked working set). However, it never explicitly tells the agent when not to use it or names an alternative for other needs, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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