list_deferred

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the output format ('as plain text') and types of items, but lacks explicit safety information (e.g., read-only, non-destructive). It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema (inferred), the description is fairly complete: it explains what is returned, the types, and suggests next steps. However, it lacks details on ordering or limits, which are minor gaps.

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 no parameters, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description adds no parameter info, but since schema coverage is 100% (none to cover), a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'return', resource 'deferred items', and scope 'in the current session'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'show_active' and 'mark_resolved'.

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 tells the agent what the tool does and suggests using 'mark_resolved' or 'fish-bridge resolve' to act on the items. It implicitly provides usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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