list_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and it discloses what each entry contains (range, size, permissions), but it says nothing about pagination (limit/offset), ordering, or scale despite the schema exposing paging parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause conveys actionable content (verb, resource, returned attributes).

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 unnecessary and the parenthetical field list is a bonus. However, the undocumented pagination parameters and the total absence of usage/behavioral context leave meaningful gaps for an agent listing segments.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate but mentions neither limit nor offset. Because these are two undocumented params rather than zero, the baseline-4 exemption does not apply, and no pagination semantics are added.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource ('memory blocks') and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (address range, size, permissions), which separates it from siblings like list_strings or list_imports. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify the name/description terminology mismatch ('segments' vs 'memory blocks').

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 on when to reach for this tool versus the many other list_* siblings, and no statement of prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the resource noun.

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