cigchat_list_broadcasts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful details: the HTTP GET method and the required 'Send Message' scope on the token. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior, but the GET method and lack of side-effect wording provide minimal transparency.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, filtering note, then endpoint and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and keeps all details compact. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no nested objects), so the description need not be exhaustive. It covers the main purpose, filtering, endpoint, and auth, but it does not explain what 'current flow' means, what the response looks like (no output schema), or pagination defaults for page/limit. The gaps are moderate for a straightforward list endpoint.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, with page and limit undocumented. The description partially clarifies the status parameter ('Filter by the stored broadcast status'), but it adds nothing about page or limit semantics. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, this dimension is weak.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('broadcasts'), and adds the scope 'in the current flow', which separates it from sibling mutation tools like cancel_broadcast and delete_broadcast. The HTTP endpoint clarifies the operation type. This is unambiguous and immediately distinguishable from other broadcast-related tools.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool retrieves and that status filtering is optional ('when required'), but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as broadcast_by_segment or broadcast_to_list. There is clear context but no exclusions or direct sibling comparison, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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