build_beta_details__list

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits). It is consistent with annotations but adds no extra value.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and the appended endpoint. Every word is relevant, though the format could be improved (e.g., separate lines for readability). Still, it is lean and front-loaded.

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?

Despite being a list endpoint with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not indicate what kind of data is returned, how to filter, or pagination semantics. The context is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively without referring to external documentation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter explanation. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already fulfills that role.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'build beta details'. The combination with the resource name makes the purpose unambiguous. Although sibling tools like build_beta_details__get exist, the verb 'List' distinguishes it well.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as build_beta_details__get (for a single detail) or build_beta_details__update (for modifying). There are no use case examples or prerequisites mentioned.

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