get_cue_list_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'query and analyze' but doesn't specify whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with filtering/sorting capabilities and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating query vs. analyze aspects.

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's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' entails, what 'lookup tables' refers to, or how results are structured. For a query/analysis tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtering, sorting, and lookup tables', which aligns with the schema's filterBy and sortBy parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Query and analyze cues in a cue list with filtering, sorting, and lookup tables', which specifies the verb (query/analyze) and resource (cues in a cue list). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'get_project_details' by focusing on cue list details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'analyze_cue_structure'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to siblings like 'analyze_cue_structure' or 'get_project_details'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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