invariance_signal_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is modest: it discloses agent-visible scoping, pagination, and newest-first ordering. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not mention return shape, signal status filtering, or pagination mechanics beyond what the schema cursor description states.

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 states the resource, scope, pagination, and ordering with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with simple optional parameters, this description is nearly complete: it covers visibility, pagination, and ordering. It would be stronger if it noted what fields a returned signal contains or that next_cursor drives the next page, but the schema provides the cursor hint and this is a low-complexity 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?

The schema already documents the cursor parameter clearly ('opaque pagination token... pass through unchanged'), and limit is constrained by type/maximum. The description adds ordering context but does not explain limit defaults or how cursor/limit interact, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('signals'), and the scope ('visible to the calling agent'), plus ordering ('newest first'). It is specific enough to distinguish a list operation from signal_get/signal_emit, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 'visible to the calling agent' gives some context for when this tool is appropriate, and 'paginated' implies browsing use. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like signal_get, signal_acknowledge, or signal_resolve, so usage is mostly implied.

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