list_deliberations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, status filtering, or what a 'durable deliberation job' entails. Important operational context is missing.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. The single sentence earns its place but is so short that it sacrifices useful context. It is efficient, not bloated, though slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that may document return fields, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It fails to clarify pagination semantics, the meaning of statuses, the 'durable' qualifier, or when to choose this instead of a sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the five parameters. While names like limit, cursor, statuses, created_after, and created_before are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain how they interact or which combinations are valid, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare schema constraints.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List durable deliberation jobs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deliberation and tail_deliberation, which imply fetching a single or streaming job. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-style siblings or explain what 'durable' means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_deliberation, tail_deliberation, or cancel_deliberation. The description does not mention pagination, status filtering, or time-range filtering, so an agent must infer intent solely from the tool name and schema.

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