pad_list

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

The description describes a pure listing operation ('List pads'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e., the tool is not read-only. For a tool whose stated purpose is listing, the annotation asserting non-read-only behavior is directly at odds with the description's implication, and the description does nothing to reconcile it (e.g., explain side effects such as access tracking or logging).

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then filter semantics. No wasted words and the front-loading is correct, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and only safety-oriented annotations, the description should carry more load. It covers purpose and two filter parameters but omits pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), archived-inclusion semantics, and the non-read-only behavior, leaving an agent with 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 17% (just project_id), so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics for query (matches names AND content, returns a snippet) and tags (matches any listed tag), but says nothing about limit, offset, or include_archived, leaving a substantial documentation gap.

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 pads') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('without full content') that implicitly distinguishes it from the full-content sibling pad_read. The purpose is clear, though it never names the sibling 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?

The phrase 'without full content' implies when to prefer this over pad_read, and the query/tags clauses hint at filtering use cases. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so guidance is only implied.

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