list_exclusions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, and the explanation about movies not being allowed to add back adds meaningful domain context. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, sort behavior, or what the response contains, so transparency is only partially covered.

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 sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing 'movies import lists are not allowed to add back' is grammatically awkward but still understandable and compact.

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?

This is a simple paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must make the tool usable. It conveys the core purpose but does not explain expected return values, default pagination behavior, or how it relates to exclusion management siblings, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 75%: page, sort_key, and page_size have descriptions, while sort_direction only has an enum. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List import list exclusions.' The added clause clarifies the domain purpose (movies that import lists cannot add back), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_import_lists and add_exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it doesn't earn a full 5.

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 the tool is the read-only lookup for exclusions and gives context about what exclusions are, so an agent can infer when it is relevant. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_exclusion or remove_exclusions, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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