List Clients

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

The description adds user-scoping beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating results are limited to the current user. It does not describe pagination or return format, but output schema covers these. Annotations already provide safety, and the added context is minimal.

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 short sentence with a clear verb and resource, front-loaded and without any unnecessary words. It earns every character.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides essential scope. It doesn't mention status filtering, but the schema compensates. The combination of description, annotations, and schema is sufficient.

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 input schema fully describes the 'status' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry this dimension. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'clients/customers', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_client. It also adds the scope 'user's' to clarify ownership, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The read-only list nature is evident from the description and sibling context, so usage is implied rather than stated. It lacks direct 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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