list_studies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return content ('IDs, names, and statuses') and indicates a read/list operation without claiming any side effects. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate and not misleading.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by practical guidance. Every sentence adds value: what it lists, when to use it, and what to do next. No fluff or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers the purpose, output contents, and recommended follow-up workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there are none), but it does clarify the scope ('current tenant/organization'), which is context beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('all studies for the current tenant/organization'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also positions itself as the entry point ('Start here when no study_id is provided'), which makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool ('Start here when no study_id is provided') and names alternatives for follow-up actions: 'call get_study_summary for a human-readable overview or get_study for the full raw config.' This provides clear usage context and direct alternatives.

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