vast42_list_closed_caption_files

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 says 'list all', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, response format, or any potential side effects. The input schema shows limit and offset, but the description itself does not clarify that 'all' is subject to pagination, which could be 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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content, making it a model of conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains or how the list is structured. It also lacks any contextual information about what a VAST 4.2 closed caption file is, how to navigate pagination, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The overall context is under-specified for an agent to use it confidently.

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% for both parameters (limit and offset), so the schema already documents their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for fully covered 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 'List all VAST 4.2 closed caption files' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (VAST 4.2 closed caption files). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vast42_get_closed_caption_file, vast42_create_closed_caption_file, etc., by being the list operation. However, it does not explicitly state scope limitations such as whether it lists across all advertisers or only within a specific context.

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 does not mention when to prefer this over vast42_get_closed_caption_file for retrieving a single file, or how it relates to other list tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or common use cases.

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