List plots

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still spends its words well by disclosing return ordering, the included folder payload, the default Trash exclusion, and the `deleted_after` restore window — real behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what comes back before the Trash caveat. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the line-broken formatting reads intentionally rather than carelessly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe ordering, the per-check key figure, and the embedded folders. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the exact shape of the folder list is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the `in_trash` rule rather than adding syntax or edge cases. It does add the meaningful consequence that trashed plots carry a `deleted_after` date, but says nothing extra about `folder_id` filtering or nesting.

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 first sentence names the resource (plots owned by the account) and the ordering (newest first), and it discloses the payload contents (key figure per check, plus folders), which distinguishes it from get_plot or analyse_plot. It stops short of naming a sibling it is explicitly not, and bundling 'and the account's folders' into a plot-listing tool slightly blurs the scope.

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?

'Plots in the Trash are left out unless in_trash is true' gives an explicit conditioning rule for one mode of use, but nothing says when to reach for list_plots rather than list_folders, find_place, or get_plot. Usage is implied by the described payload rather than stated as a recommendation.

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