gavaza_requests_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'List' and mentions the status filter, but does not address side effects, permissions, pagination, ordering, or default behavior when no filter is given. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List', immediately conveying the core action. It is concise, contains no filler, and every word adds value.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what happens when no status is provided (likely returns all requests), nor does it reference output schema content or any interaction with sibling request tools (e.g., gavaza_requests_status). Given the tool's low complexity and presence of an output schema, this is a minimum viable description but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'status' with a string/null type and no description, so the schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by stating that the status optionally filters results, which is essential semantic information beyond the bare schema. It does not enumerate possible status values, but for a single optional parameter this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('data subject requests'), and the optional 'status' filter further specifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gavaza_breach_list or gavaza_evidence_list, which target different resource types.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over sibling list tools (e.g., gavaza_breach_list). The only usage hint is the verb 'List', which implies a read operation but lacks explicit context.

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