List Testimonials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does state the operation is a retrieval (read-only) and explicitly mentions supported behaviors (optional filtering and sorting), which is useful. However, it lacks context about response shape, pagination behavior, defaults, or any access-related caveats, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the key extensibility (filtering/sorting) is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not describe what the return value looks like, mention defaults, or provide any usage context beyond the basic operation. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it would need more guidance on expected output or additional behavioral constraints.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 10 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema. The generic phrase 'optional filtering and sorting' adds no semantic value over the structured parameter definitions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Retrieve'), a concrete resource ('testimonials from your Senja project'), and mentions the key behaviors of filtering and sorting. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings: get_testimonial (single item) and create_testimonial (write operation) through the plural resource and read-oriented verb.

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 the siblings. The description does not mention that get_testimonial should be used for a single testimonial or create_testimonial for adding one. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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