accelo_list_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not state pagination behavior, default page size, maximum results, permissions, or response shape, which matters for a list tool with a 100-item limit.

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 text is compact and front-loads the one-line purpose before the argument list. Each line carries information, though the Args format is dense and could be clearer about filter value types.

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?

For a five-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameters but omits when to use it, pagination semantics beyond indexing, and any return-value or limit/ordering behavior. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It documents filters keys, fields syntax with an example, search scope, and 0-indexed page plus the max-100 limit, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not specify filter value formats or explain the standing/affiliation/type value domains.

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 and resource ('List requests from Accelo'), which clearly distinguishes it from accelo_get_request and accelo_count_requests. It does not name or compare against a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 versus accelo_count_requests, accelo_get_request, or accelo_list_request_threads. The docstring only documents parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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