list_disputes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic read operation with optional filters. It does not disclose pagination (limit behavior), ordering, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose. No extraneous words or redundancies.

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?

For a list tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It should mention pagination (limit), default ordering, and the structure of returned data.

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 description explicitly maps 'user' and 'status' filters to external_user_ref and status parameters, adding meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions. However, it does not cover the limit parameter, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 'disputes', and mentions optional filters by user or status. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_dispute or update_dispute, the purpose is easily inferred.

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 some guidance on filtering but lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_dispute for a single dispute, file_dispute for creating). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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