List evaluations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), optional filters, and pagination via next_cursor. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it has no side effects, though 'list' implies it. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no redundancy. The core action and sorting are front-loaded, and the pagination note is appended. Every word serves a purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose, ordering, filtering, and pagination. It implies the return of evaluation objects. It could mention authentication requirements, but these are likely implicit in the tool's context. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions verdict and rule_set as optional filters, and next_cursor for pagination, which covers three of four parameters. The limit parameter is not described, but its meaning is self-evident. The description adds value but does not fully elaborate on parameter formats or constraints 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 clearly states the tool lists evaluations, sorted newest first, with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like get_evaluation (single item) and evaluate (create) by focusing on listing. The verb 'List' and resource 'evaluations' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions optional filters and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus get_evaluation or evaluate. The context implies listing multiple evaluations, but it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative routing.

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