retrieve_assignment_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral content beyond them: nothing about pagination defaults, ordering effects, maximum page size, or what the returned entries contain, even though pagination parameters exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the endpoint. The second sentence largely restates the first with the tag scoping added, a minor redundancy rather than real waste.

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 six-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but not the paging contract or the shape/ordering of results. Adequate to call it, thin on what an agent should expect back.

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 100%, so every parameter (page, size, tagId, orderBy, x-trace-id, resourceType) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the filtering notion and adds no format, default, or interaction guidance beyond it — baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List tag assignments") and scopes it to a single tag via the path template, so an agent can tell it apart from retrieve_assignment (singular) and retrieve_assignments_audits_list. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"List and filter all existing assignments for a tag" implies the usage context (browse/filter assignments scoped to a tag) but never states when to prefer this over retrieve_assignment or the audits list, nor any preconditions such as the tag having to exist.

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