cuemap_alias_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify what 'manual' aliases are versus other alias kinds, whether results are affected by project scope, or what the returned data looks like. These gaps are material in the absence of an output 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 one tightly written sentence with no filler or duplicated schema information. The core action and scope are front-loaded before any optional detail would be needed.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool this is not badly incomplete, but the absence of annotations and output schema raises the burden: it does not describe return values, empty results, or how project scoping affects manual aliases. Enough for basic invocation, not enough for confident handling of edge cases.

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 50%: 'project' is documented, but 'cue' is not. The description helps by stating aliases are 'associated with one cue,' but it does not explain the cue value format or how the optional project parameter interacts with the listing. It adds modest meaning without compensating fully for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('manual cue aliases'), and scopes it to 'one cue', which distinguishes it from sibling alias mutators like cuemap_alias_add and cuemap_alias_merge. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 the tool is for retrieving existing aliases for a specific cue, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives, mention any preconditions, or give exclusion criteria. The usefulness is inferred from the verb and sibling context rather than stated explicitly.

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