list_saved_replies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List saved replies' and does not mention pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. As a read operation, the verb implies safety, but no additional behavioral context is given.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action and resource directly, making it appropriately sized for a simple listing operation.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not address the optional api_token parameter or any behavioral details such as pagination or access restrictions. For a tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, this one-liner is underspecified and leaves the agent with limited context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'api_token' parameter at all. With only one parameter, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose and usage completely undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'saved replies', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_conversations, list_comments, and list_labels. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit usage context or alternatives are provided. However, since there are no sibling tools that mention saved replies, the intended usage is implied from the tool's name and one-line description. It does not mislead, but also does not offer guidance on when to choose this over other list tools.

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