list_outgoing_transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and that each entry has a preview_path for deep-linking, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Some gaps remain.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then response detail and endpoint. Every sentence provides value with no filler. Highly efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers key details (initiator, endpoint, preview_path). It could mention pagination implicitly, but overall adequate for a simple list tool. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters 'after' and 'limit'; it only mentions response fields (preview_path). No additional value.

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 it lists 'pending project transfers INITIATED BY the authenticated wallet', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_incoming_transfers by emphasizing the direction of transfers.

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 clear context by specifying the wallet initiator, helping differentiate from incoming transfers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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