epf_acs_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior burden. It discloses the auth requirement and expands the status codes into human-readable meanings Description-cropped. However, it does not state read-only behavior, default filter behavior when status is omitted, or pagination/response expectations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sentences deliver scope, auth, and parameter semantics with no filler. Information is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 optional-parameter list endpoint, the description covers the essential call context: scope, auth, and status values. But with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, it omits return-shape expectations and fails to explain how this listing differs from epf_download_list, so completeness is only adequate.

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 only parameter, status, is fully explained with enum meaning annotations (N=new, S=started, X=cancelled, C=completed), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. It also states the filter is optional. No further parameter behavior is described, but the single parameter is well covered.

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), the resource (ACS-keyed download files), and the scope (productId=PARENT). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like epf_download_list, and the term

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?

It specifies that Bearer auth is required and that status filtering is optional, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as epf_download_list or epf_update_status. A clear selection condition is missing.

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