accelo_list_interactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape: 'staff' and 'contacts' arrays each containing an 'interact' sub-object with id, date_actioned, and type. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'list' claim, though it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a definition and a compact Args block. The enumeration of roles is slightly long but earns its place by defining the domain term; overall little waste.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description covers the return structure and both inputs adequately for an agent to call it. It lacks error/auth context, but for a simple read-only list scoped to one activity the essentials are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'id' is an Activity ID and that 'fields' requests additional fields on the returned staff/contact objects — a substantial clarification over the bare 'Fields' schema entry. It stops short of giving the field syntax or format for 'fields'.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (interactions on a single activity), and immediately defines what an interaction is (sender/recipient with creator/from/to/cc/bcc/etc. roles). This clearly separates it from siblings like accelo_get_activity and accelo_count_interactions.

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 requirement of a single activity id implies the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over accelo_count_interactions or accelo_get_activity, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable.

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