mgmt_chart_annotations_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description alone must convey behavior. It only restates the operation, offering no detail on pagination, response shape, read-only safety, authentication, or whether returned annotations are ordered or filtered.

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 very short and free of fluff, but the leading documentation URL pushes the actual description ('List chart annotations') to the second position, making the structure less front-loaded. It is acceptable for a trivial tool but not exemplary.

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 call with complete parameter schemas, this may be minimally usable; the agent knows the action and required counterId. However, the absence of any annotation or output schema and lack of behavioral context means an agent could still guess wrong about return format or pagination.

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 describes both parameters (counterId as Counter ID and pretty as Pretty-print response) with 100% coverage. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema gives, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 names the action ('List') and resource ('chart annotations'), so an agent can identify it as the batch-read counterpart to mgmt_chart_annotation_get/create/update/delete. It does not state the scope (e.g., 'for a counter'), but the singular required counterId parameter supplies that.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over mgmt_chart_annotation_get or the write operations. The only signal is the verb 'list,' which implies retrieval of multiple annotations but does not explain prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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