list_user_attributes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior or the default/max limit of 100 results. The claim 'List all' contradicts the pagination parameters, making the behavior 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing or filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource. It earns its place by stating the purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. The brevity is a positive, not a drawback.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what an 'attribute' is, what the response looks like, how pagination works, or that 'all' may require multiple calls due to the limit. The description leaves critical context missing, making it incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (user_db_id, limit, offset) already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics, though the description's 'all' wording conflicts with the limit parameter.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('user attributes'), and the context ('in a user database'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_user_attribute (single item) and list_user_dbs (different resource). The word 'all' is somewhat misleading given the limit parameter, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as get_user_attribute, create_user_attribute, or list_user_dbs. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it lists attributes within a specific user database, but no explicit direction is given.

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