superops_clients_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention filtering and pagination, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the response shape. This is adequate for a list tool but leaves minor gaps.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists the key behaviors efficiently.

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 simple list tool with zero required parameters and fully self-documenting parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context. It lacks a brief pointer to sibling search/get tools, but no critical details needed to call it correctly are missing.

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%, and every parameter (max, stage, cursor, status) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming status, stage, and pagination, so it stays at the baseline.

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 core action clearly: 'List clients (accounts) in SuperOps.ai' and names the relevant filtering options. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like superops_clients_search or superops_clients_get, so differentiation is left to verb and naming.

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 conveys that the tool is for listing clients and can filter by status, stage, or paginate. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over superops_clients_search or superops_clients_get, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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