rm_list_expenses

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds filter-scope context, but does not mention pagination, date-range behavior, or response characteristics. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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. Every word contributes meaning, and the core operation and filtering options are stated immediately.

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 list tool with all-optional parameters and an output schema, this may be minimally sufficient, but date-range and pagination semantics are not described. An agent could make a basic call, but nuanced filtering behavior is left to guesswork.

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 adds meaning for project_id and user_id via 'filtered by project/user,' but page, per_page, from_date, and to_date are left entirely to inference from their names. Compensation is only partial.

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 starts with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('logged expenses'), then states the two operating modes: across all projects or filtered by project/user. This visibly distinguishes it from single-record tools like rm_get_expense and write tools like rm_create_expense.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use the tool: when listing logged expenses, either globally or filtered by project/user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use.

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