List segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: paginated response with 'has_more' and the specific fields included per item (e.g., current subscriber count). This adds transparency about what to expect when invoking the tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Lists segments on the current site'). It packs essential details (pagination, response fields) without any wasted words or redundancy. Every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with an output schema available. The description adequately conveys the scope (current site), pagination behavior, and item fields. With annotations covering safety and open-world semantics, and the output schema documenting return values, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning each parameter (page, limit, site_id, name_contains) already has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond saying 'paginated' and mentioning 'has_more', which is already implied by the page/limit parameter descriptions. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists segments on the current site, paginated.' It specifies the resource (segments), the action (lists), and the scope (current site). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites or list_attributes. The mention of response fields further clarifies what the tool returns.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list segments for the current site. It also implies usage for browsing segments with pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives (e.g., list_audience_groups), so it falls short of a 5.

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