workflowmoves_outreach_list

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

Beyond the annotations it explicitly reassures that the operation never sends a message, explains why readOnlyHint=false is not a red flag (a retained background job is created), and tells the agent to poll danceflow_job_status. It also flags that effect flags are conditional and must be checked via danceflow_component, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of saying how long claims are retained or what authorization is needed.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, non-sending guarantee, returned job and effect flags. Slightly telegraphic phrasing like "Base effect flags: none" overlaps with the never-sends statement, but there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the polling guidance is helpful. Gaps remain on the mandatory root argument, on retention semantics for the claims listed, and on how this differs from the other outreach tools, which matters for a nested-argument tool in a large sibling set.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description does illuminate the permissions object by framing base effects as none and conditional inference/download effects as component-dependent, which ties into the write/network/download/training flags. However the required "root" parameter (a constrained string with a leading-punctuation pattern) is not explained at all, leaving the one mandatory argument opaque.

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?

"List retained active send claims" gives a specific verb and resource that separates it from outreach_claim, outreach_inspect and outreach_finish. The domain term "send claims" is left undefined, so an agent knows the shape of the operation but not precisely what a claim is.

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?

It gives follow-up routing (poll danceflow_job_status, check danceflow_component for conditional effects) but never states when to call this list versus the sibling outreach_inspect or outreach_claim tools. Usage is implied by naming siblings rather than by stating selection conditions.

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