ps_list_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists returned fields but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, pagination behavior, or side effects, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler and is front-loaded around the resource and filter. It could be marginally tighter by omitting return-field details that the output schema already covers.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain most parameters, lacks usage guidance relative to siblings, and omits behavioral context, even though the output schema makes return-value explanation less necessary.

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 adds meaning for the status parameter by listing extracted | linked | graded, but provides no explanation for limit, config_path, periscope_path, or the default of graded, leaving three of four parameters semantically undocumented.

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 that the tool lists claims by pipeline status and enumerates the status values, making the core purpose understandable. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling list/search tools such as ps_get_claim or ps_corpus_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The status filter implies a usage context, but the description never states when to choose it over ps_get_claim, ps_corpus_search, or other list tools.

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