sequences_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and sorting parameters, which hints at list behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'List of sequences with stats' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the subsequent lines clarify inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a list tool with parameters.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters and mentioning returns. However, with an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still lacks behavioral context for a list operation, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists and describes all three parameters (page, per_page, sort_by) with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify allowed values for sort_by or constraints on page/per_page, leaving some semantics incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all email sequences in your Apollo account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analytics_sequences' or 'workflows_list' which might also list sequences or related items, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'analytics_sequences' and 'workflows_list' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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