List user segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about segments being reusable and referenced via userSegmentId, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or ordering. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation but not especially rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining how segments are referenced, which is useful context for an agent deciding whether to resolve segment IDs.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation and identifies the required project context. However, with no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, it does not explain what fields each segment contains or how pagination via limit/cursor behaves, leaving moderate gaps.

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 only 33%, with project described but limit and cursor left undocumented. The description reinforces the project scope but does not explain how limit and cursor control pagination or output size, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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'), a specific resource ('reusable user segments'), and scope ('in a project'), and adds the useful detail that segments are referenced from targeting rules via userSegmentId. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_segment (single segment) and list_flags (flags, not segments).

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 conveys that this is the tool for listing reusable segments within a project, which gives implied context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with get_segment or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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