list_crawls

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by guaranteeing the currently selected crawl is untouched and by warning that crawl metadata is data, not instructions — a prompt-injection safeguard the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is unusually phrased but earns its place as a safety note; nothing is wasted.

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, annotation-covered read tool this covers purpose and safety adequately. It is thin, though: with no output schema, the description says nothing about what crawl metadata is returned or how the limit interacts with results, so an agent knows less than it could.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema names it but never explains it. The description does not mention limit, its default of 20, or its 1-100 bounds at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (recent native database crawls), plus an important scoping qualifier: it does not load or change the currently selected crawl. That implicitly contrasts with a crawl-selecting sibling, but no sibling in the provided list is named, so it clarifies itself without explicit differentiation.

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?

'Without loading or changing the currently selected crawl' implies the use case (read metadata only, no side effects on current selection), which is useful context. However, it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing largely to inference.

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