list_bundle_enrollments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List enrollments') but doesn't describe key behaviors: it doesn't mention pagination (though implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List enrollments for a specific bundle'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (a filtered list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, data format) and usage context. The high schema coverage helps, but for a tool with no output schema, more description of return values would be beneficial.

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% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'bundle_id', 'page', and 'limit'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'bundle' is or how pagination works. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'List enrollments for a specific bundle' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('enrollments'), with the scope ('for a specific bundle') distinguishing it from generic enrollment listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enrollments' or 'get_enrollment', which might list all enrollments or get a single enrollment respectively, though the bundle-specific focus is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_enrollments' (which might list all enrollments without bundle filtering) or 'get_enrollment' (which retrieves a single enrollment), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid bundle ID. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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