List Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. The description adds that it 'does not contact remote authorities', providing extra behavioral clarity beyond the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver full purpose, usage guidelines, and safety info. Front-loaded with the primary action and ordering. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter behavior, and safety guarantees. No gaps remain for an AI agent to handle this tool correctly.

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 covers the single parameter 'limit' with 100% description coverage. The description adds context: 'raise only when the agent needs a broader scan', which helps the agent decide when to increase the default. This adds value beyond the schema's own description.

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?

Description clearly states 'List locally tracked FYI/Alaveteli official information requests, ordered newest first'. It specifies the data source and ordering, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning not to use for known ID (retrieve_request) or health metrics (check_status).

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?

Explicitly provides use cases ('dashboards, triage, or finding an ID before retrieve_request') and exclusions ('do not use when you already know the ID... or only need health metrics'), naming specific alternative tools. This leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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