list_agendas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the active_only filter and returns a list, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe error conditions, or note ordering/pagination. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact and well-structured with an Args/Returns layout, containing no redundant text. The opening 'List all agendas' closely mirrors the tool name, but the parameter explanation earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the main action and parameter, and the output schema likely handles return structure. However, it fails to provide usage context relative to related tools (e.g., search_agendas) and omits edge-case behavior, leaving gaps for a tool in a broader set of siblings.

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?

The schema has no description for active_only (coverage 0%), so the description's 'If True, only show active agendas' adds useful meaning beyond the schema's title. However, it is minimal and does not define 'active' or provide additional format details, offering limited compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List all agendas'), which identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'search_agendas' or 'get_agenda', so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_agendas or get_agenda. The description only explains the active_only parameter but gives no context for selection decisions or exclusions.

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