List Strings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that results are paginated. It does not say the operation is read-only, how strings are ordered, what a result item contains, or whether very large databases are truncated despite the schema exposing count/offset.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter tool, but the conciseness dimension rewards the absence of waste.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without a picture of the return shape, string ordering, or the distinction between pattern and regex behavior. The schema covers inputs, but nothing compensates for the missing output and behavioral context.

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 100%, so every parameter (count, offset, pattern, regex, timeout, instance_id) is already documented. The description adds only the word "pagination" and no extra syntax, interaction rules (e.g., regex vs pattern), or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List") and resource ("extracted strings") plus the scoping trait of pagination, so the agent knows it enumerates the string table. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_string, search_text, or find_regex, which could each be mistaken for retrieving string data.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over search_text (content search), find_regex (regex search), or get_string (single string lookup). The pagination hint implies enumeration but nothing tells the agent which sibling to prefer for a filtered query.

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