List depots

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the depot fields returned, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication needs, or the effect of include_contact_details, which are handled in the 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource concept and then lists the returned fields, though it is a noun phrase rather than a full action-oriented statement.

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 read-only list tool with rich schema annotations and fully described parameters, the description appropriately summarizes the returned depot data. It does not need to repeat pagination or return-format details already covered by the schema.

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 all three parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource precisely as 'Depots (the team's operating bases)' and lists the default route settings returned. It is clear what the tool exposes, but it does not name the list operation or distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_routes or list_plans beyond the resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving usage entirely implied by the resource name.

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