skylight_list_auto_creation_intents

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a read-only operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds a useful detail about the statuses ('pending/completed') and mentions 'ids', but it does not disclose pagination, output shape, or any limitations. With the safety profile already annotated, this is adequate but not 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds clarifying detail without bloating the text. Perfectly efficient.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and hints at the return content (ids). However, it lacks detail on response structure, ordering, or any filtering options. Given the existence of closely related siblings, more context about what distinguishes this list would improve completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter, frameId, and schema coverage is 0% (no description in the schema). The description refers to 'on the frame', which implicitly ties the parameter to a frame identifier, but it doesn't explicitly explain what frameId is or its format. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more, but the param name is self-explanatory enough to warrant a middle score.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('AI auto-creation intents'), and adds scope ('on the frame') plus a helpful parenthetical ('find pending/completed drafting jobs and their ids'). It is clear about the primary action and the type of data returned, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_auto_creation_drafts.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_list_auto_creation_drafts or skylight_get_auto_creation_intent. The description does not state any exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose correctly among the closely related siblings.

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