list_cuts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'With evidence' hints at the payload but nothing is said about permissions, read-only vs mutating behavior, pagination, or failure modes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing, which caps it below 5.

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?

A three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation is left almost entirely unexplained. The description would need to cover the meaning of project/project_dir and the shape of the 'evidence' payload to be adequate.

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% across three parameters. The clause 'for one talk or all talks' loosely gestures at the 'talk' parameter (and its null-default behavior), but 'project' and the required 'project_dir' are completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the guidance needed to supply them is missing.

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 names a specific resource (cut candidates) and its scope (one talk or all talks), and the implicit verb 'list' is unambiguous given the tool name. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling such as analyze or decide, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to see cut candidates, optionally narrowed to a talk. There is no statement of when to prefer this over analyze, plan, or decide, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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