wb_passes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only labels the resource as 'active warehouse passes' without stating read-only behavior, response format, pagination, or any access/scoping details. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' in the name, not by the description.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words, and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool. It reads more like a fragment or title than a complete structured description, but it does not waste any words.

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 zero-parameter list operation, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer what resource is returned. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves response fields, sorting, and behavioral details unspecified.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter meaning is needed beyond the empty input schema.

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 identifies a specific resource ('warehouse passes') and a status qualifier ('active'), and the tool name's '_list' suffix makes the intended listing operation clear. It does not explicitly name an alternative like wb_pass_create/update/delete, so it falls just short of 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 'active' qualifier implies this tool should be used to retrieve currently active warehouse passes, and the sibling CRUD tools make the general context inferable. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over wb_passes_offices or other pass-related tools.

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