list_flats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists flats and returns tower/wing/floor/project info, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, potential absence of results, or any other edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the most important qualifiers without any fluff or redundant wording.

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 read-only list tool with two optional pagination parameters, the description adequately covers what is listed, for whom, and what fields are returned. While it doesn't describe the response format or pagination defaults, the schema handles the parameters and the tool is not complex enough to require more.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (page, items) are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the general context of listing flats, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all flats associated with the current resident') plus the included data (tower/wing/floor/project info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flats_by_occupancy or get_flats_by_resident_ids by explicitly scoping to the current resident.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when you need the current resident's flats, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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