radiant_list_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: limit-based truncation with non-deterministic cut-off when holdings exceed `limit`, and it gives actionable mitigation advice. It does not mention return format or ordering, but the pagination caveat is the most important hidden behavior for this kind of list tool.

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 two sentences and every part earns its place: the first states the core operation, the second delivers an important caveat with actionable guidance. The warning is prominently front-loaded with 'PAGINATION CAVEAT,' making it easy for an agent to notice and account for.

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 two-parameter list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main operational risk (pagination truncation) and the correct parameter strategy. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the shape of returned token entries would have made it fully complete, but the current text is sufficient 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by explaining that `limit` can cause non-deterministic truncation and advising callers to set it high enough. This extra semantic makes the limit parameter more than a bare 'maximum tokens' field.

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 and resource: 'List Glyph tokens held by a Radiant address.' It is clear this enumerates a holder's tokens rather than fetching balances or searching the token registry. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a perfect 5, but the scope is adequately differentiated.

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 its use case: when an agent needs all Glyph tokens for a Radiant address. It provides practical guidance about setting `limit` high enough to avoid truncation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as `radiant_get_token_balance` or `radiant_get_tokens_by_type`, leaving the when-to-use-vs-alternatives decision to inference.

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