List Correspondence Type Permissions

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it explains that granular permissions via UAL are force-checked and not included, details pagination behavior (page/per_page, metadata), and specifies the endpoint and required parameter. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these. The additional behavioral insights are valuable and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then exclusions, use cases, pagination details, required parameters, and API reference. It provides essential information in a logical order. There is slight redundancy (mentioning paginated JSON array twice), but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (list endpoint with 3 parameters, high schema coverage, annotations present, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, exclusions, pagination behavior, required parameter, and API endpoint. It explains how to control pagination and what the response contains (JSON array with metadata). No critical gaps are apparent, making it adequate for a developer to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter already described. The description reinforces pagination usage (page, per_page) and mentions default and max values, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 because schema coverage is high; the description's marginal value is limited.

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 clearly states it returns a list of all Correspondence Types Permissions for the requesting user in a specified project, and explicitly mentions what is excluded (granular UAL permissions). It also provides concrete use cases like enumerating Custom - Configurable Tools, finding IDs, and filtering. While there is slight ambiguity between 'permissions' and 'Custom - Configurable Tools', the purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Custom - Configurable Tools when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternative tools for similar but different purposes. The absence of exclusions or alternatives lowers the score.

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