List annotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful traits: results are condensed to one line per annotation and the default filter is pending-only. It omits ordering, pagination/limits, and permission requirements, which is a meaningful gap for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the output-format fact is front-loaded before the default-scope fact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the minimum is covered (what it returns, default scope), but ordering, result limits, and the distinction from get_pending_annotations are left unaddressed. Adequate but with clear omissions.

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 must compensate. It documents the default value of the status parameter ('pending only'), which is the single most important semantic detail, but adds nothing about the resolved/all enum values or whether combining them is meaningful.

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 states a specific verb and resource (listing annotations) and adds the output shape ('one-line summary per annotation'), so an agent knows it is a summarized list rather than a detail fetch. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_pending_annotations, which appears to overlap with this tool's default behavior.

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?

'Defaults to pending only' hints at scope but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The presence of a near-identical sibling (get_pending_annotations) makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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