list_friends

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

The description discloses sorting order and returned fields, but with no annotations, it fails to explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any potential side effects. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be helpful for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. However, it omits mention of the limit parameter, which could be briefly included without breaking 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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return fields. The missing parameter documentation is the main gap, but for a simple list tool, the description is mostly complete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'limit' or its purpose. Without any parameter guidance, the agent cannot know how to use the limit parameter correctly (e.g., valid range, behavior when omitted).

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 tool lists the agent's own friends, specifies sorting by most-recent contact, and enumerates returned fields. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_friend or get_inbox.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the description implies use for listing friends, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, e.g., for getting a single friend use get_friend.

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