feedings_list_feedings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'List feeding records' but doesn't detail important behaviors like what happens with the 'exact' filters (likely equality on timestamps), whether the tool returns all matching records or paginates (limit is available), or whether the tool is read-only. The description does not mention anything about the response shape despite having an output schema, nor does it disclose any side effects—but since it's a list, sides effects are minimal. Still, for a tool with no annotations, it should explain default behavior when no filters are given or how 'exact' contrasts with range filters.

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 names the resource and mentions filters. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. No fluff or unnecessary detail, though it could have included a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 12 optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain default behavior (e.g., what happens if no filters are provided), or how to interpret 'exact' vs 'range' filters, or whether limit applies. However, the output schema likely provides return structure, and the parameter descriptions cover each field. For a listing tool, it is minimally complete but could benefit from a note on default pagination or sort order.

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%, so all parameters are documented with descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does mention 'optional filters' which hints at the filtering purpose. The schema already explains each parameter, including the child_id hint to use list_children, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that. Baseline 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 identifies the action (list) and resource (feeding records), with a nod to optional filters. It distinguishes from creation/update/delete siblings by implying a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like feedings_create_feeding. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 no explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. However, the 'list' verb and the context of sibling tools (create/update/delete) imply it is for retrieval. It lacks guidance on when to use versus other list tools (e.g., sleep_list_sleep) but that's a minor gap for a simple listing operation.

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