list_smell_analyses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic listing operation. It does not mention pagination defaults, filtering behavior, ordering, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified. It lacks essential information about the tool's behavior and parameters, making it incomplete rather than concisely effective.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about return format, filtering, pagination, or typical usage. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the many sibling tools with overlapping purposes.

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 low (38%), and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It fails to mention that teamProjectId is required, or that limit, offset, status, analyzer, etc., are filters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's minimal field descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('조회한다' = retrieve) and resource ('smell analysis 목록' = list of smell analyses), making its primary function clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_smell_analysis' (singular) or 'list_smell_findings', so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'retrieves the list', with no mention of typical use cases, required context (e.g., teamProjectId), or when to prefer this over other list/detail tools.

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