List the swipefile

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explicitly stating 'Read-only, free' and enumerating every returned data field (advertiser, headline, body copy, media URL, platform, saved date, taste tags). It also clarifies that the data mirrors the web app's Swipefile tab, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions with 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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a clarifying equivalence to the web app, then practical use cases, and ends with a one-sentence safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by listing the fields returned for each ad. The limit and collection semantics are covered by the input schema, and the read-only/free status is stated. For a simple listing tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'limit' or 'collection'; it only reinforces the schema's own field descriptions. Since the schema handles parameter documentation completely, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List this workspace's SWIPEFILE') and immediately explains what the board contains with an explicit list of fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_to_swipefile and export_swipefile_deck by framing it as the read-only research board mirroring the web app's Swipefile tab.

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?

It gives clear context and three concrete use cases: answering 'what have we saved?', mining the user's taste before planning an ad, and finding a reference to remix. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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