list_ponds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It honestly discloses the non-obvious default override (limit=100 vs. the API's own 10) and explains the exact pagination mechanism via _metadata, covering both offset and cursor-based cases. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to correctly retrieve all results.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence delivers essential operational detail (default behavior, pagination strategy) without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know: the resource, the default limit, how to interpret the response's _metadata, and how to continue paginating. Optional parameters are already fully described in the schema, and the description adds the missing operational context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining why limit defaults to 100 and how offset or the next cursor should be used with the corresponding parameters. It clarifies the relationship between the two pagination styles, which isn't evident from the schema alone.

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?

Opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get a list of ponds.' and even includes the HTTP endpoint for certainty. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pond, create_pond, and update_pond by explicitly stating it is the list operation.

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?

Provides clear context that bulk requests are the common case, explaining why the limit defaults to 100. It also gives explicit pagination instructions, but it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., get_pond) for single-item needs.

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