wp_list

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

With no annotations and no output schema disclosure beyond existence, the description carries full behavioral burden but provides none. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only (implied but not confirmed), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, so it's efficient but under-informative.

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 a tool with one required parameter, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which might cover returns), the description is still inadequate. It leaves critical behavioral and parameter details unspecified, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the parameter name 'tag' without adding format, validation rules, or examples. No meaning is added beyond what the schema's bare 'tag' property already conveys.

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 'List waypoints with a specific tag' restates the tool name (wp_list) and its single parameter without adding meaningful specificity. It vaguely indicates retrieval of waypoints filtered by tag, but the terse phrasing borders on tautology and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like wp_save, wp_delete, or wp_goal beyond the obvious verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, edge cases (e.g., what happens with an unknown tag, whether it requires existing waypoints), or context for choosing this over other waypoint tools.

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