list_sort

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 does reveal the key behaviors (interactive drag, save capability, AI-sort option), which helps the agent understand it's a stateful UI tool rather than a pure computation. However, it doesn't clarify what 'save' does, whether this persists state, what happens client-side vs server-side, or what the response/return value is (no 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?

One concise sentence, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and enumerates capabilities efficiently. Could arguably benefit from a second sentence on return behavior, but as written it's appropriately sized and readable.

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 UI-drawing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and user interactions adequately. However, given no output schema, it fails to clarify what the tool returns (saved order? success status?), which is a notable gap. With only 2 well-documented parameters it's not a complex signature, but the lack of behavioral/return detail reduces completeness below the high tier.

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 100% — both 'items' (list of items to sort) and 'title' (optional title) are documented with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which under the coverage>80% baseline justifies a 3. It doesn't clarify item structure expectations or constraints on label/id values beyond what schema provides.

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 states the tool displays an interactive list sorting UI with drag-to-reorder, save, and AI-assisted sorting. It's clear about verb ('Display') and resource (interactive list sorting UI), and the capabilities distinguish it from siblings like flame_graph and database_query. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling sorting/search tool, so it's not a highest-scoring 5.

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 through its interactive UI framing but doesn't explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives. There's no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like flame_graph or database_query. The context of when you'd invoke a UI-drawing tool instead of a data-query tool is left implicit.

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