glanceway_list_favorites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: results are sorted by favorited time, newest first. However, it does not mention pagination semantics beyond the schema, nor does it state that this is a read-only operation; the gaps are moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential information: the resource, the action, and the result ordering. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 list operation, the description covers the key context: what is listed and the result order, while the schema fully documents the parameters. Minor gaps remain because there is no output schema and no annotation, so the agent must infer the return shape and safety profile, but the tool is low complexity so this is largely acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only hints at the favoritedAt relationship through the sort-order mention, which is insufficient to raise the score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'List favorited items from Glanceway,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also adds the sort ordering ('newest first'), making it distinct from the sibling tools that list all items or sources.

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 implied by the phrase 'List favorited items' — an agent can infer to use this when it needs a user's favorites. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over glanceway_list_items or glanceway_list_sources, nor any when-not-to-use context.

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