list_generations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are scoped to the calling user/workspace, what 'recent' means, or what the response contains. The implicit ordering by recency is the only behavioral detail, and even that is only suggested.

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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than true crispness.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return shape, default ordering, recency window, and result scoping. An agent can guess limit/offset semantics from the schema, but little else is established.

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 100%, so both limit and offset are already documented; the description only contributes the notion of recency. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the semantic heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or ordering caveats.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('AI generations'), scoped to 'recent' ones in the studio. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as list_photo_packs or list_identities, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other listing or generation tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'recent' loosely hints at a time window but never defines it or points to any alternative for older or filtered results.

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