stars_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists starred items and that 'detailed=True' returns a full response, but it omits behavioral traits like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 14 words. It front-loads the core action and adds a key parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 listing tool with two pagination methods (legacy and cursor), the description fails to mention how pagination works or which parameters to use. The output schema exists but is not shown here; however, the description should still guide the agent on pagination. The description is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). Baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting the 'detailed' parameter, but this is similar to the schema description. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter context elsewhere, so score remains at baseline.

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 starred items for the calling user, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('starred items for the calling user'). It also introduces the 'detailed' parameter. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like stars_add or stars_remove.

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 provides minimal usage guidance; it only mentions the 'detailed' parameter. There is no advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stars_add, saved_list) and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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