list_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination behavior or default limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action ('List authorization requests'), followed by concise use cases. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and typical use cases, which is adequate for a list operation. However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, it does not mention that results can be filtered or paginated, nor the shape of the return value. The schema compensates for filter details, but the description could be slightly richer about the response structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for tags, status, date filters, or pagination. It neither clarifies nor repeats parameter details.

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 states 'List authorization requests for this project,' which is a specific verb (list), resource (authorization requests), and scope (this project). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_request (single request) and cancel_request (mutation).

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for monitoring ongoing requests, debugging workflows, and auditing decisions.' However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_request for individual requests or poll_request_status for status checks, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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