List email automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read only' repeats structured data and earns nothing. What does add value is the scope disclosure that drafts are included and the enumeration of returned attributes (status values draft/on/paused, trigger, enrollment and send counts, app-triggerable flag, goal). It still says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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?

A single compact sentence with the read-only framing and the resource front-loaded before the attribute list. The attribute enumeration is long but each item tells the agent what it will receive, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description sensibly carries the return-field burden, which is the right call. But for a list tool in a suite containing a near-identically named sibling, the missing differentiation and any hint about result volume leave the agent under-informed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not fabricate any filtering semantics, which is correct given the empty schema.

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?

A specific verb plus resource: list the workspace's email automations, with a clarifying gloss ('welcome emails and other series that send by themselves') and an explicit note that drafts are included. The one gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling postfjord_list_automations, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus postfjord_list_automations, postfjord_get_goal, or the create/set email-automation siblings. 'Read only' implies it is a safe inspection call, but the agent is left to infer that on its own.

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