list_allowed

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 insight. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this requires authentication, how data is returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. The description adds some value by specifying the permission fields returned, but lacks depth for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and what it returns, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies the resource and returned fields, which helps, but lacks context on system behavior (e.g., authentication needs, data format) that would be crucial for an agent to use it effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter information (as there are none), which is appropriate, but it does clarify the output semantics by mentioning the permission fields (canSend, canRead), providing useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all allowed recipients with their permissions'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It specifies what information is returned (permissions including canSend, canRead), though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_chats or get_messages, which prevents a perfect score.

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 what 'allowed recipients' refers to (e.g., in a messaging system) or how it differs from sibling tools like list_chats or get_messages, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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