seq_list_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (signal IDs, titles, descriptions, filter expressions), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how the default sharedOnly=true scoping affects 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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding. The action is front-loaded, the domain gloss follows immediately, and the return fields are listed last where they belong.

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, side-effect-free list tool, this is nearly sufficient: it defines the resource and enumerates the returned fields in lieu of an output schema. The gap is the absence of any guidance on the workspace parameter's effect or on when this is the right entry point versus its siblings.

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 both parameters (workspace, sharedOnly) are already documented in the schema, including the default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('signals') and even defines the domain term as 'saved searches and predefined filters', which is genuinely clarifying. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling seq_get_signal or from seq_search/seq_query, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before calling seq_get_signal, and nothing tells it when to prefer seq_search or seq_query instead.

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