list_hitls

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real operational context — results are paginated, requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set, and notably that start_login does NOT unlock this tool, saving an agent a failed auth path.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, followed by the access precondition. The ACCESS block is slightly verbose but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only, four-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, pagination, and the auth prerequisite. Filter semantics (e.g. whether status and environment combine) are the only minor gap.

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 100%, so page/limit/status/environment are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'optional filters' generically and adds no syntax, defaults, or filter-combination semantics beyond 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?

Specific verb + resource ('List HITL configs') with a scope note ('with optional filters') that separates it from create_hitl/get_hitl/update_hitl/delete_hitl. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the access prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives among the many list_* siblings (list_templates, list_domains, list_circles).

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