asana_list_portfolios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are 'Paginated' and that the default owner is 'me'—useful context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral nuances like rate limits, response shape, or how pagination tokens work. Given the annotation safety coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: one core action clause, one default-value note, and one pagination qualifier. No filler words, no redundant prose. The most important information ('list portfolios owned by a user') is front-loaded, making it trivially easy to parse. Every sentence contributes unique value.

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 moderate complexity (five optional parameters, all documented in schema) and annotations that establish read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is almost complete. It explains the primary scoping and pagination. Without an output schema, a more explicit note about the return format (e.g., an array of portfolio objects) would elevate completeness, but for a straightforward list resource in a well-known domain, the current description suffices. Not a full 5 because the exact response structure is unaddressed.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including defaults (owner defaults to 'me', max_pages default 20, etc.). The description repeats the default owner but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully carries the parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is justified.

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?

Description starts with action 'List' followed by the resource 'portfolios' and limits scope to a user's ownership within a workspace. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools (e.g., asana_list_projects, asana_list_tasks) by naming portfolios specifically. The title and description align, adding clarity.

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 tells what the tool does (list portfolios owned by a user in the workspace) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_get_portfolio for a single portfolio or asana_create_portfolio for creation. It also omits prerequisites or context such as 'workspace' / 'owner' resolution. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so the agent is left to infer usage.

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