List put.io transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds a small extra detail ('with download progress') that hints at output content, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response size limits, or how 'current' vs 'recent' is determined. This is consistent with annotations and adds some value beyond them.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is immediately informative, earning a high score for efficiency and clarity.

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 low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, scope, and an output feature. It doesn't explain return structure, but that's not required given the absence of an output schema. The annotation-driven safety profile is well covered; the only missing element is explicit guidance on how 'current' and 'recent' are separated, but this is not critical for invocation.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and status) with descriptions and constraints, providing 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters directly, so it adds no extra semantic value over the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource ('transfers on the signed-in put.io account'), distinguishing it from siblings like putio_get_transfer (which fetches a single transfer) and putio_add_transfer (which creates transfers). It also adds scope ('current and recent') and output detail ('with download progress'), making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool (to view transfers and their progress) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like putio_get_transfer for a single transfer or putio_clean_transfers for cleanup. No exclusions or 'use instead' guidance is provided, so the usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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