List own sci-bot questions

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

The description states the result scope (signed-in account) and organization (generating/answered), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions (e.g., not signed in), or whether the list is paginated. The verb 'lists' implies a safe read, but more disclosure would help.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output structure with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and output split. It could also state that the response contains the user's questions only and define 'generating' vs 'answered', but this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific detail since none exist.

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 ('Lists') with a clear resource ('questions of the signed-in account') and adds a distinguishing output detail ('split into generating and answered'). This differentiates it from sibling tools that ask, check, cancel, read, or delete questions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The usage can be inferred from the name and scoping, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, such as requiring authentication, or exclusions like 'use scibot_check_question for a single question's status'.

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