list_talks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sort order (newest first) and that the result is a complete enumeration ('every'), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permissions for a list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; scope and ordering both land 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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers what is listed, for which key, and in what order. Only pagination/limit behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap against an otherwise complete definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds one meaningful hint — the 'speaker' value is a slug — but does not clarify the slug format, whether it is an ID or a name-derived key, or error behavior for an invalid slug.

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 and resource ('List every talk and speech') with a clear scope ('for one speaker slug') and ordering ('newest first'). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'search' by being a per-speaker enumeration, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it has a speaker slug and wants all talks. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of 'search', and no mention of what to do if the slug is unknown.

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