List Content

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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any other behaviors such as pagination, default project scope, authentication requirements, or output format. The mention of 'Override the default project ID' in the schema is not reflected in the description, leaving a behavioral nuance unaddressed.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It clearly states the action and the object in an efficient manner.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain that a default project is used unless overridden, nor does it mention what the response contains. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could provide a bit more context about the scope of listing (e.g., default project behavior) to be fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'type' as a filter and 'project_id' as an override. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already describes the parameters adequately. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'List content registry entries' with examples like 'event names, display labels'. This uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples help distinguish it from sibling listing tools like list_projects, list_maps, and list_alerts.

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 implies usage for listing content registry entries, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools like query or get_dashboard. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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