list_pauses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (skip/take defaults) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, ordering, permissions, or potential errors. The list verb implies safety, but it is not explicit.

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 minimal and efficient: one sentence for purpose, then a clean 'Args:' block. No fluff or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on when to select this tool over similar list tools (e.g., list_statuses, list_templates) and does not mention any access requirements or edge cases. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 explains skip as 'Pagination offset' and take as 'Number of records to return' with defaults, adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema properties. This is sufficient for the two-parameter tool.

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 tool lists all pause types available to agents, with concrete examples like wrap-up and DND. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools by focusing on a specific resource (pause types).

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 context is implied by the tool's purpose—if you need pause types, use this tool. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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