list_parts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all parts' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though the schema has a cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no parts exist. It doesn't describe the return format or any side effects. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just 6 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element ('List', 'all parts', '(enhancements)', 'in DevRev') contributes to understanding, making it efficiently structured despite its brevity.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'parts' are in the DevRev context, how filtering works, what the response looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial-and-error or external knowledge.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'parts' or 'enhancements' mean in context, nor does it clarify the relationship between parameters. The baseline is 3 since the schema does substantial documentation work, but the description doesn't compensate for the 33% coverage gap or add meaningful context.

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 'List all parts (enhancements) in DevRev' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('parts'), but it's vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this lists ALL parts unconditionally or just those matching filter criteria, and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_part' (singular) or 'search' (which might handle parts). The parenthetical '(enhancements)' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify.

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. There's no mention of when to choose 'list_parts' over 'search' (which appears in sibling tools) or 'get_part' (singular). It doesn't indicate whether this is for browsing all parts versus filtered queries, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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