daz_list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is a read-only listing operation with no destructive side effects. The return structure with progress and counts is detailed, providing full transparency. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by parameter details and return format. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Python docstring format adds slight verbosity.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no required inputs), the description is complete. It covers the operation, parameter semantics, and return data. The presence of an output schema in the description further aids understanding.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description clarifies the single parameter 'status_filter' as optional with specific string values ('queued', 'running', etc.) and default null meaning all. The return object is also documented. Schema does not list enums, so description is essential.

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 first sentence 'List all tracked async requests and their current statuses' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all tracked async requests'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like daz_get_request_status (single request) and daz_cancel_request (mutation). The optional filter is also described.

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 explains when to use the optional status_filter and the default behavior when omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for a single request status) or mention alternatives, though siblings imply them.

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