list_batches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List batch email jobs' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all batches, supports pagination, includes metadata (e.g., status, dates), or has rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence ('List batch email jobs') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration. This is appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no parameters.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return format, pagination) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the listing behavior, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed, and the description correctly implies no filtering or options are required.

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 'List batch email jobs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('batch email jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_batch' (which likely retrieves a single batch) and 'create_batch' (which creates one), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating batches), or exclusions (e.g., not for filtering or analytics). With siblings like 'get_batch' for single batches and 'get_analytics' for performance data, the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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