list_hitls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses an authentication prerequisite, a required environment variable/restart step, and that start_login is insufficient. It also notes pagination behavior. It doesn't cover error cases like missing keys or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is solid.

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 purpose, followed by pagination and access notes. Every sentence earns its place and no terminology is wasted.

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 tool is a low-complexity list operation with four optional, fully documented parameters and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, pagination, and a critical access requirement that would otherwise cause failed calls. Absence of an output schema makes the return shape less explicit, but 'paginated results' plus the schema is enough for correct invocation.

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 four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's phrase 'optional filters' adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents page, limit, status, and environment.

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?

Description opens with 'List HITL configs with optional filters' – a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('HITL configs'), and the key scope modifier ('with optional filters'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling single-item and mutation tools like get_hitl, create_hitl, and update_hitl.

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?

Provides concrete preconditions ('needs a Proof account', 'Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server') and explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool. However, it doesn't point to the single-item alternative get_hitl for when a specific HITL config is needed, so it misses explicit alternative routing.

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