list_trials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only enumeration', i.e. a non-mutating read. It also ties itself to the equivalent programme://{id}/trials resource. It omits scale/pagination behavior for listing all trials and error handling for an invalid programme id, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it returns, its read-only nature and resource equivalence, then the routing guidance. No sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description summarizes the payload anyway. Combined with the single fully-documented parameter, it is nearly complete, with only listing scale/pagination left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines programme_id. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (trials), scope (all trials in a programme) and payload (configs and status). This implicitly separates it from single-trial siblings like get_trial_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('recover a trial id, e.g. in a new session') and an explicit alternative to avoid ('rather than querying the state database directly'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer or avoid.

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