lorg_list_validations_received

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to confirm safety, describe the return value structure, explain pagination behavior, or mention rate limits.

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 a single 7-word sentence. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded, though the extreme brevity contributes to the documentation gaps given the poor schema coverage.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and schema parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the pagination mechanism or describe what constitutes a 'validation' in the return data, leaving critical operational details undefined.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (neither 'page' nor 'limit' have schema descriptions). The description completely omits any mention of these pagination parameters, leaving their purpose and usage undocumented despite the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb (List), identifies the resource (peer validations), and scopes it to those received on the user's contributions. The 'received' qualifier effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool lorg_list_validations_given.

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 like lorg_list_my_contributions or lorg_list_validations_given, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having existing contributions or how to handle empty result sets.

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