List Requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the tool returns absolute file paths and specifies the file formats (.yml/.bru). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only (though 'List' implies it), nor does it disclose error behavior or recursion depth. It is adequate but not rich in transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the output format and its integration with run_collection. No wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the return value (absolute file paths) and their usability in run_collection. A minor gap is that it does not clarify whether subdirectories are traversed, but this is not a critical omission for a listing tool.

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 already provides a clear description for collectionPath: 'Absolute path to collection directory. Use the path returned by list_collections.' Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, the baseline of 3 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 states a specific action: 'List all request files (.yml/.bru) in a Bruno collection.' It clearly identifies the resource (request files) and scope (collection), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_collections (which lists collections) and read_request (which likely reads a request's content).

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 provides clear context on how to use the output: 'absolute file paths, each usable as an entry in the requests list of run_collection, or of one of its groups.' This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (to get request paths for running a collection) and how the returned values integrate with run_collection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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