agenta_products_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, yet it says nothing about this being a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a list tool the safety profile is low-risk, but the agent gets no behavioral context at all.

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?

Four words is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Nothing about scope or return shape is included to earn the brevity.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at minimum clarify what is returned and whether results are paginated. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent under-informed about the call's behavior and output.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but it does not need to.

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?

It names a verb (List) and a resource (products), so the basic action is inferable, but 'and plans' leaves it ambiguous whether this returns two distinct entity types, a combined catalogue, or a products list annotated with plan info. There is no differentiation from siblings such as agenta_subscriptions_list or agenta_products_create.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention any alternative tool for related listing needs (subscriptions_list, invoices_list, pay_list). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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