listScorecards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination behavior (cursor-based) and a limit range constraint (1-50), which are valuable. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the list includes archived/inactive scorecards, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining parameters in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters well, but lacks usage context relative to siblings and doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication or filtering. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully explains both parameters: 'cursor' for pagination (including where to get it) and 'limit' with its valid range (1-50). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover default values or optionality.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all active scorecards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'listEntities', 'listInitiatives', or 'listTeams', which appear to follow similar patterns for different resource types.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getScorecardInfo' or 'queryData'. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't explain the context for choosing this tool over other listing or querying tools available on the server.

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