list_friends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses personal scope ('your') and the accepted-friend filter, but says nothing about return format, ordering, pagination, or potential empty results. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and directly conveys the tool's function.

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 no-parameter list operation, the description is functionally complete: it states the resource and scope. It does not detail output or pagination, but those are less critical given the simplicity and the absence of an output 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema shows an empty properties object with 100% coverage. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, so there is nothing missing for parameter understanding.

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 is specific: verb 'List' plus resource 'your accepted friends.' The qualifier 'accepted' semantically distinguishes this from sibling list_friend_requests, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the word 'accepted' suggests this tool is for confirmed friendships, not pending requests. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_friend_requests or list_people.

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