invariance_eval_suite_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds the 'paginated' behavior and the visibility scope, which are useful. However, it does not detail what happens with pagination (e.g., returns next_cursor) beyond what the schema already provides, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed. With annotations covering safety, 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key scoping detail. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it lists and that it is paginated and permission-scoped. The cursor parameter is already explained in the schema, and the output shape is not specified but likely follows common list patterns. No critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50%; the cursor parameter has a schema description, but limit does not. The description does not mention either parameter or add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the description offers no compensation for the undocumented limit parameter, and the coverage is only half, this is a gap.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'eval suites', and adds a scoping detail 'visible to the calling agent'. It clearly distinguishes from creation/get tools by being a list operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like eval_dataset_list or eval_case_list, but the resource name 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusion conditions or when to prefer a different listing tool. The only hint is the scope 'visible to the calling agent', which implies permissioned listing, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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