list_pies

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

The description details that the tool is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) and discloses the rate limit (1 per 30 seconds), which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. It also explains the API returns all pies before applying the limit, offering transparency on pagination behavior.

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 two sentences plus a list of returned fields. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then specifies return data and rate limits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and an output schema exists (mentioned), the description sufficiently covers return fields, rate limiting, and usage with get_pie. No gaps remain for an agent to understand what it does.

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 the 'limit' parameter with description, min, max, default. The description adds that 'the limit is applied after fetching,' which is behavioral semantics not in the schema, enhancing understanding of how the parameter behaves.

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 tool lists pies with specific financial metrics (money-in, progress, performance). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_pie' which retrieves a single pie. The verb 'List' and resource 'pies' are specific.

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 advises using with 'get_pie' for details, which implies when to use this tool (listing summaries) vs. retrieving individual ones. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for filtering (e.g., no user/workspace filter mentioned), but the context is clear enough.

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