vast42_list_linears

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 mention pagination behavior, default limit, maximum 100, offset semantics, or that the result is a list (not 'all' at once). The term 'List all' could wrongly imply a single complete response, while the actual behavior is paged. No details about response format or ordering are given.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits potentially important details (e.g., pagination), though for a simple list operation this level of brevity is acceptable. It earns a high score for conciseness but not a perfect 5.

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 lack of an output schema and the absence of annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how to use it. There is no mention of pagination, defaults, or what a 'linear media' resource comprises. The presence of many sibling tools with similar names further increases the need for clarification, but the description is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about the exact behavior.

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% coverage for both parameters, describing 'limit' (default 100, max 100) and 'offset' (pagination offset). The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The word 'all' in the description does slightly conflict with the pagination semantics, but the schema compensates for this.

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') and the resource ('all VAST 4.2 linear media'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like 'vast_list_linear_media' by specifying the VAST 4.2 version. However, the word 'all' is slightly misleading because pagination is enforced via limit/offset, which could confuse agents expecting a single unfiltered response.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'vast42_get_linear' (single item retrieval) and 'vast_list_linear_media' (non-4.2 version) exist, but the description does not differentiate use cases. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this listing is appropriate.

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