List Affliction Types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details about pagination (page, per_page) and response metadata, as well as the REST endpoint. No hidden side effects are disclosed beyond standard read behavior. The description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 description is five sentences long, with the key action front-loaded. However, it includes redundant information like the API category and endpoint URL, which are not helpful for an AI agent. The error about 'Incidents' adds unnecessary confusion and wastes words. Could be more streamlined.

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?

The description lacks essential context about the relationship between affliction types and incidents. It incorrectly states that the tool returns Incidents, leaving the agent unsure of the actual output. No output schema exists, so the description should better clarify the structure. Given the complexity (7 parameters, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete and misleading.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description only reiterates pagination parameters (page, per_page) and required company_id, adding minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Filter parameters are not elaborated upon in the description.

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 opens with the correct purpose: 'Return a list of all Affliction Types associated with a Company.' However, it then contradicts itself by stating 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents,' which conflates affliction types with incidents and undermines clarity. The tool's name and first sentence are clear, but the subsequent error causes confusion about what the tool actually returns.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Incidents when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also provides pagination guidance and highlights required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like show_affliction_type or create_affliction_type, nor does it mention alternative tools for different needs.

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