list_analysis_designs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return structure and the listing behavior, but does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, or any access restrictions. For a list operation, pagination is a common behavioral trait that is absent.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or extraneous detail.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core functionality and return format. However, it omits details about pagination or sorting behavior, which are often relevant for listing tools. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the pagination question remains a gap.

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 and type with no description or enum. The description compensates by listing the allowed status values (in_review|revision_requested|analyzing|supported|rejected|inconclusive) and explaining it is an optional filter. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List all analysis designs') and clearly notes the optional status filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_analysis_design (singular) and create/update operations.

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?

The description conveys clear context for use (listing designs, optionally filtering by status) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or what alternatives to consider. The sibling names (e.g., get_analysis_design) imply differentiation, but the description itself does not state exclusions.

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