list_update_sets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and there is no indication of side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-mutating. It also does not mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral quirks beyond the parameters.

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 a single, concise sentence: 'List update sets with optional state and query filtering.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning. Ideal length for a simple list 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential functionality and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, but the purpose is clear and the schema is well-documented, making it reasonably complete for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'optional state and query filtering' adds a high-level overview but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., limit, query, state with examples). The schema does the heavy lifting for parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists update sets, using the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'update sets'. It also mentions optional state and query filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_update_set (which likely retrieves a single update set) and list_update_set_changes (which lists changes).

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 implies usage when you need to list update sets, especially with filtering capabilities. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_update_set or list_update_set_changes. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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