list_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavior: coordinate transformation (image px at render scale 2.0, PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down), resolution of condition_id to finish tags, and the semantics of 'unattached' and 'verdicts'. This goes far beyond basic expectations.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary behavioral detail. It efficiently covers output fields, filters, and coordinate system without redundancy. Slightly long, but the complexity of information justifies the length.

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 tool with no annotations and complex output behavior, the description covers all essential aspects: filters, coordinate system, resolved condition semantics, and the purpose of special fields. An output schema exists, so not explaining every return field is acceptable; the description still adds enough context to use the tool 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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying that filters can be combined ('or both'), and explicitly maps the 'condition' parameter to the resolved finish tag concept, which is not fully apparent from the schema alone.

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 tool lists every annotation on the takeoff with condition_id resolved to its finish tag. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning resolved conditions, unattached counts, and verdicts, which positions it as the comprehensive annotation inventory tool.

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?

Explicitly explains filtering by sheet, condition, or both, and ties output fields to concrete actions: 'unattached' identifies candidates for link_annotation, and 'verdicts' serves the mark_verdict/delete_verdict family. This provides clear when-to-use guidance versus related tools.

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