avanan_list_exceptions

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

The verb 'List' makes the read-only, enumerating nature clear and the whitelist/blacklist qualifier defines the scope. However, with no annotations, the description carries full burden and does not disclose return shape, pagination, or any authentication expectations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the action, resource, and the two list types with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema list operation, this description is largely complete: the action and the parameter are clear, and the schema fully documents excType. It could be improved by stating what the returned exception entries look like, but nothing needed for invocation is omitted.

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 coverage is 100% and the excType parameter is fully described with an enum. The description's 'whitelist or blacklist exception entries' essentially restates the schema, so it adds no new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('List') and an exact resource ('whitelist or blacklist exception entries'), which matches the required excType parameter. This clearly separates it from the singular get_exception and mutating add/update/delete_exception siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_exception, add_exception, or the other exception tools. The only signal is the word 'List', which implies enumeration but leaves the agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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