ps_research_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'recent' hints at default ordering but there is no mention of how results are limited, whether config_path/periscope_path are required for discovery, or pagination behavior. The output schema covers the return shape, which relieves some burden, but scoping and prerequisite behavior remain unstated.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; it is front-loaded and wastes no words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 output schema covers return values, but for a discovery tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without the scoping, ordering, or configuration context needed to call it confidently.

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?

All three parameters (limit, config_path, periscope_path) have zero schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any of them — in particular it never explains what config_path or periscope_path are for, which is the most ambiguous part of the schema.

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 phrase names the resource (research sessions) and what it returns (questions, statuses), giving an implied list operation. However it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like ps_research_status or ps_corpus_recent, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus ps_research_status, ps_research_start, or any other sibling. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration entry point.

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