samsara_list_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a read-only operation ('List'), which is transparent. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if there are no addresses (empty list vs error). The description is adequate for a simple list tool but misses opportunities to clarify edge cases or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise: a single two-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. For a simple list operation, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is functional but not complete. It explains what the tool does but fails to address pagination (how 'after' and 'limit' work together), the format of the returned data (since no output schema exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like samsara_create_address. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to ensure proper use.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description does not mention the 'after' or 'limit' parameters at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema. Without description context, an agent must infer their meaning from names and types only. The baseline is 3 due to zero coverage, and the description fails to add value, keeping it at 3.

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 'List all saved addresses' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (addresses). It is concise and distinguishes this tool from siblings like samsara_create_address, which creates addresses, and samsara_list_vehicles, which lists a different resource. The scope 'all saved addresses' is implied but not detailed (e.g., pagination or filtering), but it's clear enough for an agent to understand the primary function.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. No usage context or prerequisites are provided. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool might be a prerequisite for other operations (like creating or updating routes that reference addresses), nor does it suggest when to use pagination (via 'after' parameter). The sibling tools include related address operations, but the description offers no differentiation or coordination advice.

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