list_3

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 single word 'list' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, what format the results take, or any rate limits. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While 'list' is certainly concise, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the lack of content is problematic, not virtuous.

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 complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides only a single generic word, this description is woefully incomplete. The agent cannot understand what this tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it produces. This is inadequate even for a simple tool among many similar siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for regarding parameters.

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' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'list_3', providing no meaningful information about what specific resource or data this tool retrieves. It fails to distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'list', 'list_1', 'list_2', 'hotlist', 'searchlist'), leaving the agent completely in the dark about its actual purpose.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of sibling tools that likely perform various listing operations, the agent has no indication of what makes 'list_3' unique or appropriate for specific scenarios. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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