list_downloads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this shows only recent downloads, includes failed exports, requires specific permissions, or has pagination/rate limiting considerations.

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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and target resources.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address what 'downloaded exports and reports' means operationally, what format the listing returns, or how this integrates with the broader system context visible in sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'resource_type', the description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, since there's only one optional parameter and the tool likely functions without it, this meets the baseline expectation. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation but doesn't need to heavily for a single optional parameter.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('downloaded exports and reports'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'download_export' or other list operations, which would require more specificity for a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'download_export' and various account/profile management tools, there's no indication of whether this lists only completed downloads, pending exports, or how it relates to other operations in the system.

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