annotate_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that output is a 'readable briefing, grouped by page' and implies non-blocking behavior ('without waiting for a send'). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second advises when to use it. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and some output characteristics. It could be more specific about the return format or filtering semantics, but for a list tool with good schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for both 'status' and 'pathFilter'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List annotation marks as a readable briefing, grouped by page,' which is a specific verb+resource+output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like annotate_inbox or annotate_resolve by focusing on the listing operation. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to check what is pending without waiting for a send.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it, distinguishing it from tools that send or resolve annotations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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