design_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates a read-only listing behavior, the workspace-wide scope, and the fact that each returned item includes current state. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but that is reasonable for such a simple tool with an output schema.

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?

A single sentence that delivers all key information immediately: what is listed, at what scope, and what information is included. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the operation and the returned content. It falls slightly short only by not addressing whether all workspace design jobs include completed/failed/archived jobs or just currently active ones.

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 zero parametersches and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but there are no parameters to explain.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every design job in the workspace'), and a qualifier ('with its current state'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like design_status, but 'every design job' signals a broad listing operation.

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 implies usage when an agent needs an overview of all design jobs, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinction from sibling status-related tools. It leaves the choice between design_list and design_status to inference.

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