list_operations

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: it returns only most recent ops, may omit just-started ones, and clarifies the state values and detail param effects. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination details, but the caveat about omitted operations is crucial and well stated.

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?

Six sentences, but each contains useful information. The get_job guidance appears twice (first sentence and later), which is slightly redundant, but the front-loaded caveat and formatted detail map are efficient. Not the most compact, but earned length.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the operation object fields (id, kind, state, progress, result, errors) and per-detail-level contents. It also explains filters, brand scoping, and the relationship to get_job, covering all essential usage aspects for a list tool.

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 schema already covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description enhances this by mapping detail levels to concrete fields (short=id+kind+state, medium=adds scopeId+progress+timestamps, full=raw including result) and giving example kind values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 opens with 'List recent Operations (the newer async-op system) for the active brand,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from get_job by calling it 'newer' and listing sibling-style ops, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to use get_job with an operationId for a specific operation's status, and warns this list may omit a just-started one. Also provides filters for kind and state, giving clear context on when to use this versus alternatives.

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