server_list_operations

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does communicate the core behavior — listing operations and their progress — and 'List' implies a read-only action. But it fails to disclose that completed operations are excluded by default (include_completed=false) and never explains what 'indirect' operations means.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and the core resource. It is efficient, though 'indirect' is ambiguous and the sentence does no work toward parameter or usage guidance.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description omits parameter semantics and sibling differentiation, and leaves 'indirect' unexplained. For a tool with no annotations and two undocumented parameters, this is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.

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% and the description mentions neither limit nor include_completed. The default filtering of completed operations is a behavior an agent needs to know to use this tool correctly, and it is only recoverable from the parameter name, not from the description.

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'), a resource ('tracked indirect tool operations'), and what is returned ('latest progress event'). The listing function is clearly distinct from sibling tools like server_operation_status and server_cancel_operation. However, 'indirect' is left undefined, which slightly muddies what exactly is being listed.

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 use this tool versus server_operation_status (status of a single operation) or server_cancel_operation. The description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name alone.

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