list_uploads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (id, name, created_at, consoleUrl) and filtering capabilities. It does not contradict annotations. No mention of auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, the provided info is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action (list uploads) and key features (filtering, return fields). No wasted words or redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and filtering options. Minor omission: default pagination values (limit 20, offset 0) are not mentioned, but they are present in the schema.

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% with each parameter already described (e.g., ISO 8601 timestamps, wildcard support, limits). The description only summarizes the filters without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 it lists Maestro uploads from DeviceCloud, specifies filtering by name with wildcard, date range, and pagination, and lists return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_upload_status or get_results, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for listing uploads with optional filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_upload_status for status of a single upload) nor when not to use it.

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