noetic.list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the visibility scope and the two types of requests included, which is useful. However, it does not mention response format, ordering, or whether both categories are returned as a single merged list.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the parenthetical purposes are concise and meaningful.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the response shape and the sessionId parameter. It explains the purpose well, but an agent cannot confidently parse result contents or correctly handle the one available parameter.

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 has one parameter, sessionId, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description never mentions sessionId, leaving an agent to guess whether it is required, what it does, and how it affects the returned requests.

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 names a specific action (list), a specific resource (access requests), and a clear scope ('visible to you'). It further distinguishes two meaningful categories—requests on spaces you own and requests you have made—which clearly separates this from sibling tools like request_access, approve_request, and deny_request.

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 explains when to use the tool: to decide on incoming requests and to track your own requests. It implies this is the read-side counterpart to approval/denial tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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