List saved segments or cohorts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value with the concrete return shape and the response_format option, clarifying what the agent will receive. It does not detail pagination or markdown formatting behavior, but for a simple list tool with strong annotations this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clean Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the inclusion of the JSON return shape is compact and directly useful.

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 straightforward list tool, the description covers the purpose, the required filter, the optional website, the output format, and the return shape. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not explicitly distinguish this from umami_list_saved_reports or mention pagination/limits, but those are minor for this use case.

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 67%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter meanings without adding substantial detail. The required 'type' param is explained as 'which kind to list', which is helpful, but the description does not go beyond what the schema already provides for 'website' and 'response_format'.

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 a specific resource ('saved Segments or Cohorts for a website'), and situates the data in the Umami UI ('as they appear under Audience'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from reporting, user, and team tools in the sibling list.

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 implies usage: call this when you need saved segments or cohorts for a website, optionally after using umami_list_websites to find the website ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nearby sibling tools like umami_list_saved_reports or the create/delete segment-cohort tools, so the when/why routing is left mostly to inference.

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