List Dare library items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' is consistent with these. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the list is newest-first and uses cursor pagination, and it includes both generations and uploads in the same listing. That goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then immediately gives the practical use case. Every clause earns its place: ordering, pagination, read-only nature, and what to use it for.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the key context: what is listed, ordering, pagination, and a concrete use case. It doesn't explicitly state the return envelope (e.g., that results include a next_cursor), but the schema's cursor parameter implies it, so the gap is minor.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (limit, cursor, response_format) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination and the general use case but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('items in the Dare library — generations and uploads'), and adds important scope details: newest-first ordering and cursor pagination. Mentioning both generations and uploads distinguishes it from sibling tools like dare_list_models or dare_list_uploads, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives one clear use case ('find an earlier video's id or an upload's storage key'), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over dare_list_uploads or dare_get_generation, nor when not to use it. The routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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