cleanuparr_list_cf_upgrades

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is aligned with the description, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context—only that the result is 'recent'—and does not disclose pagination, filtering options, or any other relevant behavior, despite the annotation already covering safety.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too sparse to set expectations about the tool's role. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'upgrade', how to interpret the output, or how parameters interact, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter meaning. The seven parameters (days, page, search, sort_by, page_size, instance_id, sort_direction) are completely undefined, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and acceptable values.

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 (recent custom-format score upgrades). It uses a specific verb and identifies the subject matter, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_cf_scores or get_cf_item_history.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing this tool over similar list tools.

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