list_automations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the default limit is 100 instead of 10, that pagination may be needed, and how to continue when _metadata indicates more results. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the GET method and 'Get a list' wording make that reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint, then explains the non-obvious default and pagination behavior. The second sentence is long and includes a generic aside about cursor-based endpoints 'like notes', which could be tightened, but there is no real wasted content.

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 list operation with six optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers the key operational details: default limit, pagination mechanics, and the most common usage. It does not describe the response item shape, but with no output schema that is a relatively minor gap for a well-understood list endpoint.

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 adds useful pagination guidance beyond the schema by explaining when to use offset and what _metadata.next means, but it also mentions a 'next' argument not present in the input schema, which slightly muddies parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get a list of Automations (GET /automations)'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_automation for single-item lookups, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the common use case by noting 'bulk requests are the common case here', which gives some usage context. However, it never directly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over get_automation or other list tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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