Envelopes list

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

The description and annotations align by marking the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that envelopes are created by the principal, reinforcing that this tool has no side effects. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are present.

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 concise, using two focused sentences. It includes necessary context about what envelopes are listed and the key fields shown, without any redundant information.

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 is a simple list operation with no parameters or output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the envelope scope, the typical use case, and the data fields returned, leaving no important gaps.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies since there are no parameter semantics to elaborate.

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 lists active and historical payment envelopes, with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the related envelopes_get tool by focusing on listing rather than retrieving a single envelope.

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 indicates the envelopes are those the calling agent can draw against, providing clear context for when this tool would be useful. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the listing vs. getting distinction is implied and sufficient.

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