list_matters

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions pagination but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the response structure is, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, it is minimally acceptable but incomplete.

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 a single, brief sentence with no redundancy. However, it may be too terse considering the lack of parameter details and usage context.

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 presence of many sibling list tools, the minimal description leaves agents unsure about the tool's exact behavior. It does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or filters, and although an output schema exists, the description should still provide enough context for selection.

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 description adds the concept of 'offset pagination', which links to the two parameters, but it does not explain the meaning of limit or offset, their bounds, or default behavior. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.

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 states the action ('List') and resource ('matters') and mentions 'offset pagination', which differentiates it from simple list operations. However, it does not specify the scope or distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_matter_items.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_matter or other list tools. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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