list_computations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned computations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error cases, making it incomplete for robust agent use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal value by implying 'capsule_id' is used to filter computations, but it does not explain what a capsule is, valid formats for the ID, or any constraints. This meets the baseline for low schema coverage but does not fully compensate for the lack of detail.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all computations associated with a specific capsule'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_computation' (which likely retrieves a single computation) or 'list_computation_results' (which focuses on results rather than computations themselves), missing full sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid capsule ID, or compare it to siblings like 'get_computation' for single computations or 'search_capsules' for broader queries, leaving usage context unclear.

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