List the swipefile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it lists 'every named collection' and the exact fields returned, plus the note that it's the 'SAME board' as the web app. It also says 'free,' which is not in annotations. While these are useful, they don't go far beyond what a read-only list operation implies given the schema. No auth, rate limits, or pagination details are mentioned, but those are not critical given the annotations.

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 action and resource, then lists returned fields, ties it to the web app, gives use cases, and concludes with read-only/free. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it's well-structured and not bloated.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (explicit field list), when to use it (use cases), and its read-only nature. It doesn't describe errors or edge cases, but the schema handles parameters. Given the low complexity and schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (limit and collection) with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond what the schema states. The phrase 'every named collection' implicitly relates to the collection filter, but it adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('this workspace's SWIPEFILE'), and defines what that resource contains: every named collection and the ads/creatives with fields like advertiser, headline, body copy, media URL, platform, save date, and taste tags. It also explicitly ties it to the web app's Swipefile tab, making the scope unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_to_swipefile, which writes, and export_swipefile_deck, which exports.

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 explicit use cases: answering 'what have we saved?', mining the user's own taste before planning an ad, or finding a reference to remix. It also notes the tool is read-only and free. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for contrasting use or state when not to use this tool, though the use cases are concrete enough to guide an agent.

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