simpleinout_list_fences

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It provides the API endpoint (GET /fences) and pagination parameters, but does not mention any scoping (e.g., current company) or authentication requirements. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's full behavior.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the API and args in a clear structure.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose and parameters, but lacks contextual details such as scoping rules or preconditions, which could be important for correct usage.

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 description adds brief semantic meaning for both parameters ('Page number' and 'Results per page') which is not present in the schema beyond titles. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is helpful but minimal for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 'List all geofences' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming 'geofences' and emphasizing 'all', which implies a comprehensive listing without filters.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the sibling tools are for different resources, the implied usage is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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