List Studies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral scope by indicating the listing includes questions, budgets, and access rights, but it does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, or other runtime behavior. With strong annotations, this is adequate, not exceptional.

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?

A single short sentence carries the core purpose and scope with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the object list is compact, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read-only one-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks usage guidance versus sibling listing tools and leaves the parameter semantics to inference, so there are clear gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description needs to add meaning to project_id. The phrase 'project-owned' loosely implies the parameter filters by owning project, but it does not explain the expected integer's source (e.g., from list_projects), format, or any constraints. This is insufficient compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb ('List') and names the resource ('studies') plus additional returned categories ('questions, budgets and access rights'). It clearly identifies project-owned scope, which differentiates it from create_study/get_study, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance or explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like list_study_recipes, list_study_runs, or list_recipe_drafts. The only hint is 'project-owned' and the required project_id, which implies a project-scoped listing but gives no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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