List automations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: disabled automations are listed but 'never relay events', which is an important nuance. It also explains the semantics of the prompt, providing context beyond the annotation.

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 packs all necessary information without waste. It begins with the action, defines the core concept, and adds a caveat about disabled automations. Every clause earns its place.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what an automation is, what data it contains, and the edge case of disabled automations. An agent would have no unanswered questions about invoking this tool.

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, which gives a baseline of 4. The description goes further by describing the structure of the returned automations (event trigger with optional platform/min_amount, and a prompt), which effectively documents the output shape. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the streamer's stored automations'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional explanation of what automations are (trigger + prompt) distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recipes. The title and description align without redundancy.

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 implies the use case: to see the streamer's standing instructions for handling events. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to call it. The mention of 'Disabled automations are included' also alerts the user to a nuance in the result set.

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