tandem_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns lightweight metadata fields and deliberately omits large bodies. It does not mention ordering, recency semantics, or side effects, but 'List' strongly signals a read-only operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—'recent', the listed fields, and 'without large bodies'—contributes directly to the tool's behavior and selection.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, does not explain the 'limit' parameter, and relies on the tool name to convey read-only status because no annotations exist. These are real but non-fatal gaps.

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 never mentions the only parameter, 'limit', so it does not compensate for the missing schema field description. The parameter name and constraints supply some meaning, but the description adds no guidance on how limit affects the returned items.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource: recent task/conversation IDs, statuses, outcomes, and next actions. The phrase 'without large bodies' clearly scopes it to metadata and distinguishes it from body-oriented siblings like tandem_read_artifact.

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 phrase 'without large bodies' implies this is for overviews rather than full content, but it never names an alternative or states explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. Siblings such as tandem_read_artifact likely cover the body-heavy case, but that routing is left to inference.

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