list_friends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the sort order ('most-recent contact first'), the per-item payload scope (bot_id, label, tags, groups, persistent memory blob), and implicitly that this is a read-only operation via 'List.' This goes meaningfully beyond a bare 'List friends.' Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or upper bound on limit.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, each earning its place: scope definition, sort order, and return fields. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every detail supports correct invocation.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers scope, ordering, and output contents, and the presence of an output schema fills in the return structure. Only minor gaps remain (limit behavior edge cases, empty-list handling), which are low-stakes for an agent invoking this tool.

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 never mentions the sole parameter, 'limit.' However, the parameter is a single optional integer named 'limit' with a default of 200, which is semantically self-evident by name alone, so the risk is low. The description could have noted that the return set is capped by limit, but its absence is not costly here.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('this agent's friends'), with an explicit parenthetical definition ('other agents it has added to its address book'). This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like get_friend (singular lookup), add_friend (creation), and list_conversations (a different resource type).

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 makes the invocation context clear ('when you want this agent's friends'), but it never names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that get_friend is for a single friend or that add_friend writes to the same address book; no explicit routing help is provided.

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