rti_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful details: results are newest-first as the portal returns them, both date formats are accepted, and status semantics are explained. It does not mention auth or pagination, but these are less critical for a list operation and output schema covers return shape.

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?

Two sentences deliver essential information without redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, and the second packs search/filter behaviors efficiently.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description provides enough about filtering and ordering for a list tool. A slight gap exists: no explicit guidance on when to use this versus rti_search, and refresh is not described. Overall, it's well within the viable range.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining category values, status values, and search fields in detail. It does not explicitly explain limit, offset, or refresh, but these are common and have defaults in the schema.

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 ('List') and clear resource ('RTI applications in one bucket'), and the category/status filters distinguish it from sibling tools like rti_search and rti_dashboard. The scope is 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 gives clear filtering context (category, status, search fields) and even clarifies date formats and result ordering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rti_search or state when this tool should not be used.

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