pulse_routine_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation but it says nothing about return format, ordering, pagination, or whether routine details are included — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe what is returned (candidate fields, count, ordering), but it stops at restating the action. Inadequate for a list tool where the agent needs to know the response shape.

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; it does clarify the single param's purpose as an application filter. However, it doesn't specify the expected format of app_id (bundle id, package name, etc.), leaving a meaningful gap.

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 (saved routine candidates) with an optional filter. It is distinguishable from siblings like pulse_routine_get and pulse_routine_save, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by application' implies when to pass a filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs pulse_routine_get, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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