get_open_borrow_intents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the authentication requirement ('Requires any Floe API key') and implies read-only behavior through 'browse', but does not explicitly state read-only status, response format, or pagination behavior. Moderate transparency.

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 composed of three short sentences: the primary purpose, a related usage hint, and the authentication requirement. It is front-loaded and concise, with no filler or redundant information.

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 simple paginated list tool with schema-covered parameters, the description covers the essential context: the resource, the auth prerequisite, and the connection to create_counter_intent. While it doesn't describe the response fields, the tool name and 'browse' make the return type inferable. No output schema exists, but the brevity is acceptable for this complexity.

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 documents both parameters (skip and limit) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('open borrow requests'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_open_lend_intents. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides a clear use case: browsing open borrow requests, and explicitly points to create_counter_intent for lending, indicating a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_open_lend_intents, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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