list_quests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists quests with optional filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether it's read-only. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and optional filtering. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too much unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filtering by 'world', which loosely corresponds to 'worldId', but doesn't explain the 'sessionId' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes, formats, or relationships.

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 action ('List all quests') and resource ('quests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from other list tools by specifying 'quests' rather than characters, worlds, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations beyond the resource type.

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 context by mentioning optional filtering by world, suggesting this tool is for retrieving quests with possible world-based scoping. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_quest' or 'get_quest_log', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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