accelo_list_segmentations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the domain model (link_type, exclusive vs multi-value) which adds real value, but does not disclose pagination behavior, max results, read-only safety, or any auth/rate constraints for a tool that returns paginated data.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact conceptual paragraph, then an args block. Efficient with no filler, though the args prose slightly duplicates what a good schema would carry.

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 filtered list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the domain model and most parameters but omits return shape, pagination totals, and behavioral constraints, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 must compensate. It does list filter keys (id, link_type, standing, required, exclusive, leaf, order_by) and documents page (0-indexed) and limit (max 100), adding meaningful semantics the bare schema lacks. It leaves 'fields' vague, so not a full 5.

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?

Clearly states the verb (list) and resource (segmentations/categories from Accelo), then explains what segmentations are and the link_type/exclusive semantics. This gives the agent enough conceptual grounding to distinguish it from siblings like get_segmentation and count_segmentations.

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?

Implied usage as a listing/retrieval tool, and the definition of segmentations orients the agent somewhat. However, it never states when to use this versus accelo_get_segmentation or accelo_count_segmentations, nor conditions or prerequisites.

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