list_social_clips_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or bounded, what scope project_path constrains, or what happens when approved is omitted — leaving the agent guessing on all behavioral aspects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the filter are stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are thin.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations, an output schema covering return values, but 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of project_path, the tri-state approved semantics, and any behavioral context an agent would need to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'approved' filter (selecting by approval status), but 'project_path' is never mentioned and the tri-state semantics of approved (true/false/null) are not clarified.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('social clips') and clarifies that it returns clips that have been proposed, which separates it from propose_social_clips_tool, approve_social_clips_tool, and reject_social_clips_tool. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the purpose is 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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by approved status' implies the main usage scenario (listing to review or check approval state), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing a filter value, and no pointer to alternative listing tools such as list_clips_tool or social_clip_report_tool.

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