io_list_moves

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the burden is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no pagination behavior for limit/startAt, no default/response-size expectations, no note on how far the filter combinations are honored.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the filtering capability. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is thin enough that it could have carried more useful detail at no cost to brevity.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimal. It omits any mention of pagination (limit/startAt), date-range filtering (startDate/endDate), sorting, or the compact/full view choice, so an agent gets no orientation beyond the schema itself.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents each of the 11 parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of status/building/assignee roughly maps to a subset of params but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and "assignee" does not match the requesterId parameter.

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 and resource ("List iOffice move requests"), which clearly distinguishes it from io_get_move, io_create_move, and the other move siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool or scope boundary the way a 5 would.

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 second sentence implies when the tool is useful (filtering by status, building, or assignee) but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions. It also says "assignee" while the schema only exposes requesterId, so the usage hint is loosely aligned with the actual parameters.

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