List overlays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, open-world read. The description adds the filtering capability but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or whether an empty result is possible – modest added value over the annotation baseline.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action precedes the optional filtering clause, letting an agent parse intent immediately.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, the description is essentially sufficient. The only gap is that, with no output schema present, it says nothing about the shape of the returned list.

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 all three parameters (type, search, channel) are already fully documented, including the channel-id fallback behaviour. The description loosely maps 'name or type' to the search/type filters, which is baseline-appropriate but adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 (overlays) scoped to the channel. The plural verb distinguishes it from overlays_get/overlays_create semantically, but the description never explicitly names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'optionally filtered by name or type' implies how to narrow results, which is useful implied usage. However it gives no explicit when-to-use versus overlays_get (fetch one overlay) or when filtering is unnecessary, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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