list_intents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about intents being NLU triggers, but does not describe pagination, sorting, or default limit behavior beyond schema.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context. No fluff or redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description could clarify return format or pagination. It implies all intents are listed, but limit is only in schema. Missing: what happens with no results or errors. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema (e.g., flowId is required, limit has default). No additional guidance on syntax or format.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists all intents in a Cognigy.AI flow') and clearly identifies the resource (intents) and scope (flow). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_intent, create_intent, etc., which operate on single intents.

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 description states it should be used to 'explore NLU configuration before training or modifying intents,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single intent, use get_intent), though the context implies it.

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