vaultix_list_balance_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'balance transactions' entail (e.g., financial statements). The parenthetical '(statement)' hints at output format but is vague.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with potential complexity (e.g., pagination, filtering), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for both parameters ('limit' and 'type'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or enhancing parameter understanding.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('balance transactions') with the parenthetical '(statement)' providing additional context about the nature of these transactions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_get_balance' (single balance) and 'vaultix_list_transactions' (general transactions), though the distinction from 'vaultix_get_transaction' (singular) is less explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vaultix_list_transactions' or 'vaultix_get_transaction'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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