list_outreach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but nothing states that explicitly, nor covers pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title or name.

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?

The tool is parameterless and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, keeping the bar low. Even so, with no annotations and no routing against its many siblings, the definition is only minimally adequate for correct selection.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier ('List pending outreach drafts'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from near-neighbours like queue_outreach, follow_ups, or chase_leads, leaving sibling differentiation to guesswork.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other outreach-oriented siblings (queue_outreach, follow_ups, chase_leads). The single sentence names no condition, prerequisite, or alternative, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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