list_generations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns generation history and supports filtering and pagination, which conveys the read-only nature and basic behavior. However, it does not mention default sorting, whether only certain statuses are included by default, or what the response shape looks like, leaving moderate behavioral 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?

The description is a single, compact Indonesian phrase that immediately conveys the core purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and the key concepts (history, filter, pagination) are 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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned list contains, whether results are ordered, or how this relates to get_generation_status for checking an individual generation's status. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the broader invocation context remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter (q, to, from, page, type, limit, status) already has a descriptive explanation including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'filter dan pagination' phrase, so it does not elevate the value beyond the schema's baseline.

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 says 'Riwayat generation dengan filter dan pagination' (generation history with filter and pagination), which clearly indicates the tool lists generation records and supports filtering and pagination. It is distinguishable from sibling get_generation_status, which presumably targets a specific generation, and from generation creation tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'list_generations' reinforces the action.

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 versus alternatives such as get_generation_status or check_credits. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or which sibling would be more appropriate for a single generation lookup. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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