engain_list_credit_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and pagination (cursor), but omits details like read-only nature, potential rate limits, or behavior when no results exist. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, ordering, and pagination. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return value structure, default parameter behaviors (e.g., projectId defaults to env variable), or required permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 50%, with only projectId, createdAfter, and createdBefore having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions cursor for pagination but doesn't explain its format or usage. Key parameters like type and numItems lack any explanation in both schema and description.

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 explicitly states the action (list), the resource (credit transaction history), and key attributes (for a project, newest first, paginated via cursor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like engain_list_labels or engain_list_orders.

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 usage for viewing credit transactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or context for comparing with other listing tools are provided.

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