list_envelopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' and notes pagination, but lacks details on sorting, rate limits, or how pagination works beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core function front-loaded. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete for a list tool. It could mention default sorting order or error handling, but overall covers the essential context.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond summarizing the purpose, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists commit envelopes for an authenticated organization, specifies it is read-only, and mentions use cases like dashboards and compliance. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_envelope and sign_action by being a read operation.

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 mentions contexts (dashboards, agent memory, compliance triage) and notes the authentication requirement, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_export or verify_envelope.

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