Structure List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape and the boundary that creation happens elsewhere, but never states that this is a non-destructive read, what connection_id selects, whether results are paginated or auth-scoped. Adequate but with real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by labeled Use/Returns/Example/Notes blocks. Dense but every line adds information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the tool has only two optional params. Still, connection_id is undocumented in both schema and description, and the read-only nature is left implicit for a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. The example structure_list(workspace="agenda-api") shows the workspace param is a name filter and that omitting it returns everything, but connection_id is never explained anywhere. Partial compensation only.

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 resource (the workspace → domain tree) and its payload (item counts), so an agent immediately knows this is a structural overview, not an item fetch. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that workspace/domain creation lives in item_save and project_link rather than here.

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?

"Use quando" gives concrete triggers: before organizing, before project_link, before backup_export. It also draws a boundary by saying creation is not done here. No explicit when-not or named alternative for the inverse case, but the context is clear.

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