list_envelopes

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 the tool lists envelopes and returns specific data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: one stating the action and filter, and another specifying the return data. There is no wasted verbiage, and every sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (listing with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and return data but omits behavioral details like pagination handling, error cases, or performance considerations. It is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more informative.

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 description mentions 'optional status filter,' which aligns with the 'status' parameter in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all three parameters (status, page, itemsPerPage), including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 envelopes with optional status filter.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('envelopes'), and scope ('with optional status filter'), and mentions the return data ('envelope IDs, names, and statuses'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_envelope' or 'list_documents', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 mentions an optional status filter but does not specify scenarios for using it over other tools like 'get_envelope' for single envelopes or 'list_documents' for related resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or best practices for usage.

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