cleanuparr_list_strikes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description aligns by using 'List'. The description adds the resource type (download items) and that they are 'strike-bearing', which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or what constitutes a 'strike', though the annotation lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It efficiently communicates the core function, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 four optional parameters and an output schema present, the description leaves out critical context about pagination, search, and strike type filtering. It also does not explain the relationship between strikes and download items, nor how this differs from list_recent_strikes. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the usage context remains incomplete.

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 details. The four parameters (page, search, page_size, strike_type) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent without clues about how to construct a valid request. No compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('strike-bearing download items'), clearly indicating the tool returns a list of download items that have strikes. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like list_recent_strikes or list_strike_types, but it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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 does not mention that list_recent_strikes might be better for recent strikes, or that strike_type filtering is available to narrow results. The description simply states what it does without contextual cues.

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